Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill,

Middlesex and Surrey (Thames Bridges, &c.) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Dudley Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Cleethorpes Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the Third time.

South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Ilford and Barking Drainage Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (SALT GABELLE).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the salt gabelle in China?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The discussions with the Nanking authorities referred to in the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on the 27th of June last are still proceeding. In view of the fact that it is the aim of the Nanking Government to consolidate its position as the Nationalist Government of China, and as such to enter into friendly relations with foreign Powers, it will no doubt recognise the paramount importance of faithfully fulfilling all the obligations to which it has fallen heir. In deciding its attitude towards the Salt Administration, the Nanking Government will doubtless also bear in mind the enormous benefits conferred upon China by the reorganisation of the system of collecting salt revenues effected by Sir Richard Dane under the terms of the Loan Agreement of 1913.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right Hon. Gentleman thinks that during the life-time of this Government it will be possible to square up matters in China?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We all live in hopes that that will be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Commander Archibald Richard James Southby, R.N., retired, for County of Surrey (Epsom Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown and Captain Fairfax; and had appointed in substi-
tution: Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Smith-Carington.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Registration (Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Brass,

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

Lincolnshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,—reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords],

Oxford Extension Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — RACECOURSE BETTING BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Mr. MONTAGUE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the attendance and vitality of Members this afternoon, you will allow me to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss the poverty and distress in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order under which I could do that.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Before we enter on the business on the Order Paper, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House at any rate some guidance about the Bill that is now before us. I wish to ask that guidance from you quite apart from and independent of the merits of the Bill itself. The question I want to put to you is whether we can proceed any further with this Bill? The point has very often been raised, and I venture to submit that in every similar circumstance your predecessor has either ruled or has expressed the opinion that a Bill that has been altered in the way that this one has been altered, should be made the subject of a re-draft, which will be brought before the House in the ordinary way to receive a Second Beading. Sir Erskine May has laid it down quite clearly that Amendments to a Bill must be a fair interpretation of the rule concerning what is relevant, and we have further instruction and guidance from Sir Erskine May in that part of his book which relates to what may be the subject of a relevant instruction to a Committee, where he says:
No instruction is permissible which is irrelevant, foreign or contrary to the contents of the Bill, or that seeks the subversion thereof, by substituting another scheme for the mode of operation therein prescribed.
I think that those words are perfectly definite, and if, on examination of the Bill now before us, it can be shown that another scheme has been substituted for the mode of operation prescribed in the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House, then the rule, I think, must be at once put into operation. The point
has been raised very frequently. There was the case of the Partnership Amendment Bill of 1856, wherein Clauses were inserted and—I quote—
the principles of which had not been affirmed at the stage of Second Reading.
That Bill was dropped and had to foe dealt with as a new Bill.
Then again, in connection with the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, on 16th August, 1889, your predecessor gave a pronouncement which I hope the House will allow me to read, and which I hope you, Sir, have carefully considered since I submitted it to you. The Speaker of the day said:
I express the practice of the House rather than the rules of the House, if I may distinguish between them. The practice of the House has unquestionably been when a Bill has been so transformed, as in my opinion this Bill has been, that a new Bill should be introduced and that leave should be given to introduce it and that the Second Reading stage should be gone through when the general principles of the Measure as distinct from its component Clauses can be affirmed.
No general principle can be affirmed or even discussed on the Report stage of a Bill. I proceed with the quotation:—
I express my opinion upon this point without the least hesitation and I desire to affirm that opinion very strongly. Having said this much, I think I ought now to leave the matter in the hands of the House and the Government. I could not stop the Bill on the point of Order as constituting a new Bill, but I do unhesitatingly affirm that the practice of the House has been in a case of this kind to withdraw the old Bill and then to introduce a new Bill in the amended form.
I am sure, Sir, you are perfectly well aware of it, but I again draw your attention to the position that another predecessor of yours—one of the greatest of our Speakers, Mr. Lowther—took up regarding this very point in reference to the Franchise and Registration Bill on 27th January, 1913. This was a very curious case. The Government itself, with all its authority and responsibility, introduced a Bill which it intended, and declared it intended, should be a means for allowing an Amendment to be moved in favour of female franchise. There was no doubt about that, and Mr. Speaker Lowther gave a ruling before the question was actually before the House. It was a ruling by anticipation for the convenience of the House. So important is
this principle—that the House should safeguard itself against Bills being introduced, and afterwards expanded in such a way that the expanded Bill is practically a new Bill—that the Speaker on that occasion gave a ruling in anticipation. He said that if certain Amendments on the Paper were carried, it would constitute the Bill then before the House a new Bill,
And then he said—
In accordance with the practice of the House it ought to be withdrawn and a fresh Bill ought to be introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1913; col. 1020, Vol. 47.]
The practice and the rulings are both perfectly plain. May I now refer to the actual changes which have taken place in the Bill now before us as compared with the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading? I shall do so without in any way entering into the merits of the changes. If hon. Members are armed with copies or the original Bill to which we gave a Second Reading, they will find that it is a one-Clause Bill. They will also find the intention of the promoters very clearly and succinctly expressed in the Memorandum to the Bill. The object, according to the promoters, was to allow the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee to use racecourses under their authority in a certain way which at the present moment is not permissible on account of the existence of the Betting Act of 1853. Therefore, the object and the sole object of the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading was to amend the Betting Act of 1853 in such a way as to allow what was narrowly specified in the Bill, namely, for the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee to regard betting as legal and so regulate it. The final clause in the Memorandum is—and I emphasise this and draw your attention to it, Sir:
The racecourse authorities by virtue of their proprietary interest in the course will control both the totalisator and the bookmaker.
In order to do that, the only thing necessary was to ask that it should be enacted in accordance with Clause 1 of the Bill. That is a complete idea—a perfectly simple idea, water-tight in itself. What has happened? If hon. Members will now turn to the Bill which is before us they will find that the very first thing which has happened is visible to the eye. In
the original Bill there were two Clauses—the Title Clause and the operative Clause. The operative part of the original Bill consisted of seven lines, and the total number of lines in the Bill was 17. The Bill now before us is a Bill of five Clauses. It consists of 149 lines of which 141 are operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the operative part leaving out the Title and so forth consists of 141 lines, compared with the five lines of the original Bill. That of course is a very important consideration but I wish to draw attention to something more. Of the original Bill, only a line and a quarter now remains. The only words in this Bill, put in proper place and put with operative effect, that are common to this Bill and the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading are:
Nothing contained in the Betting Act, 1853, shall apply to any—
I now draw attention to the change that has taken place in the definition of the ground that is to be subject to the operations of the new law. In the old Bill the ground to be subject to the benefit of the amended law was ground owned by the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee. This Bill extends that definition substantially and extends it by changing the reasons upon which the original Bill was drafted. It is now proposed to apply this to any approved racecourse and "approved racecourse" is defined as:
Any ground … and any ground adjacent thereto in respect of which there is in force a certificate of approval issued under this Act.
I submit that that first point, when you consider what its actual and practical meaning is, is an alteration of such importance that it becomes an alteration of principle.
The second point that I wish to draw to your attention is this. The original Bill to which we gave a Second Reading prescribed quite definitely that the authorities that were going to exercise this new power were the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. These disappear, or practically disappear, and in their place is created a totally new and unheard of authority, an authority which raises points of principle and not merely points of convenience. That authority is the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I want to draw your attention in a minute to
another enormous change that has taken place, but this alone is a change of principle, setting up a committee on new principles of an unknown character, a committee the existence of which was never indicated by anybody in this House, and certainly not at all indicated in the original draft of the Bill. There is a minor point, but one which I must mention because it is of some substance. We gave no directions regarding the rules that were to be drafted in order to carry out the original Bill at all. The House felt that it belonged to the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, and although the word "totalisator" appeared in the Memorandum of the original Bill, there was nothing of a totalisator in the operative part of the original Bill. That is an important point too, that we now take upon ourselves the responsibility of prescribing rules as well as simply handing over authority to deal with certain properties, because they were properties, to two well recognised and most highly reputable racing authorities in this country.
I wish further to draw your attention to what has taken place in Clause 2. This, as I said, is a new Clause altogether, setting up a new principle, and I wish to draw your attention to this. So far as the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee are mentioned, it is provided in this Clause that they can appoint five members out of a Board of 12. Therefore, these racing authorities that were to be the sole authority under the original Bill have become altogether subordinate. In the constitution of this Board, moreover, new elements come in which again raise new principles bearing on the relation between the State and betting in this country. For the first time, the Home Secretary is going to appoint the Chairman of this Board, who is going to have a salary, a statutory salary, and I submit to you that in respect to Clause 2, that change that I have briefly indicated is so fundamental that nobody can possibly rule that a Bill with this brought in as an Amendment is the same as the Bill that was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member a few weeks ago.
In Clause 3, there are big changes, but I will not refer to them, because it might
be regarded that although the changes are big, they do not amount to matters of principle. But in Sub-section (7) of Clause 3, we come to a point which is absolutely fundamental. It is a point of the greatest principle, and I am almost inclined to invite the Home Secretary to associate himself with me—a very unusual thing—in this matter. The Subsection—and I wish rather to press this point upon you—reads as follows: It says that the
Racecourse Betting Control Board shall submit annually to the Secretary of State a report of their proceedings, together with an account, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State, of the moneys received and expended by them during the year, and such report and account shall be laid by the Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament.
How can anybody who has got respect for order and the control of this House, respect for those limits within which, however inconvenient it may be sometimes to hon. Members opposite and sometimes to hon. Members around me, this House must do its business, agree with that? I say that the insertion of that Sub-section strikes so deeply, not only at political but at moral principles, that whether it is right or wrong—and I am not taking sides at all; I am describing the nature of the change, and whether that change is right or wrong—it is a gross abuse of the liberties of discussion and amendment of this House to put it in, embodying as it does such a fundamental distinction and such a conflict between fundamental conceptions of morality and politics without any Instruction from this House on the Second Reading. This is a tremendous change in principle. The original authorised certain authorities, two groups of authorities, that were specified and named, and specified and named in a most exclusive way, to authorise betting in certain places, which again were defined.
This Bill makes the State directly responsible for the betting machinery set up and makes the Secretary of State responsible to this House and answerable to this House for these transactions. No such thing as making the State a partner in the betting system of the country was involved in an Amendment of the Act of 1853 or authorised by this House, and if hon. Members will again read the final sentence of the Memorandum to the original Bill, they will see that:
The racecourse authorities by virtue of their proprietary interest in the course will control both the totalisator and the bookmaker.
That now, they must see, is an absolutely grotesque description of the provisions of the Bill as it now reaches us. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the changes that have taken place in this Bill are changes of great principle, and that the original decision of this House cannot be expanded and cannot be set aside by any perfunctory reference that has been made in speeches during the Second Reading of the last Bill. A reference by any Member during the Debate on the Second Reading to something which was in his mind when that Bill was under discussion before it received a Second Reading cannot justify what has happened since that Bill left this House, while it was assuming its present shape. Even if they had made a definite declaration at the time when they were asking for a Second Reading of that Bill, they could not now ask for their Bill to be ruled in order, because that is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther on the Franchise Bill of 1913, to which I have referred. That it was in order in Committee has been ruled again and again, by the Speakers of this House, does not carry any obligation to this House, when the Bill reaches the Report stage, to reconsider the re-drafted and amended Bill as being in order. If it was contemplated, in any event it should have been made the subject of an Instruction, and I venture to say that if an Instruction had been moved, it would not have been given to expand the Bill as it has been expanded. On these grounds, and after that examination and explanation of what is in my mind, I ask you most respectfully, Mr. Speaker, if you will be good enough to give us guidance in regard to the order of this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if any other hon. Member wishes to make any remarks, I would like to know first whether be has anything to add to what has already been said.

Sir BASIL PETO: I desire to put before you, Mr. Speaker, some considerations which have not been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish, first of all, to say that one of the precedents to which the right hon. Gentle-
man referred, that made in 1889 on the Tithe Rent Charge (Recovery) Bill, rests upon what is termed, in Erskine May, "Extensive Alterations." I want to submit to you, first, that what has taken place in this Bill cannot appropriately be called "Extensive Alterations" of the Clause. It is, in fact, a new Bill, built up entirely upon a tiny fragment which still remains of the few words of the first Bill. The point I want to make on that, is that those words which remain are not relevant to the main purpose of the Bill. It was found upstairs, and referred to by the learned Solicitor-General, that the Betting Act, 1853, was not the only Act against which protection was required in order to set up totalisators. They, therefore, started off, in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, with the very wide words:
Notwithstanding any rule of law or enactment to the contrary——
provision may be made for the setting up of totalisators, and on any ground of reasonable draftsmanship, the subsidiary purpose of the original Bill, which was explained in the Memorandum, to legalise places on racecourses for bookmakers, would naturally have followed, and would have been in what is now Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. I submit to you, therefore, that not only are there only 11 words left of the original Bill, but those words are left in the Bill to give a kind of semblance of similarity to the present Bill which, on any reasonable drafting, they could not have possibly maintained. With regard to Clause 2, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, has adequately laid the point before you. The fundamental point of principle is that the House decided, on Second Reading, that certain racecourse authorities should have control of these matters which the House proposed to legalise. In Committee a totally different principle has been adopted, namely, a partnership between the Government and certain racecourse authorities, and even with bodies such as the committee of Tattersalls and the Association of Racecourse Owners—a partnership in which, on a division, the Government might have a controlling vote. That is uncertain. But it is undoubtedly a partnership which may be regarded as an equal partnership between the Government and these authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman did not refer at all in his remarks to Clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 prohibits juvenile betting with these totalisator machines. The Title of the original Bill was "to amend the Betting Act, 1853." I have referred carefully to that Act, and I find in it nothing whatever with regard to any prohibition of betting by juveniles. That question was not legislated upon, and, therefore, I would submit to you that Clause 4, while it is suitable matter for a Bill dealing with juvenile offenders, or matters of that sort, is not only wholly outside the scope of the Bill which passed Second Reading in this House, but is outside the Title of the Bill, and on that ground alone this is entirely a new Bill. I do not want to add anything further, as the right hon. Gentleman has laid the case so clearly before you, but I should like to ask your advice to the House whether this Bill, in the circumstances, should not be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, was good enough to give me notice that he would raise this question before the House entered upon the Report stage of the Bill, and, as a very important principle is involved, I will, with the leave of the House, give my reply fully. In the first place, I would like to say that I have fully considered the precedents in the cases which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has brought to my notice, and, of course, while I must pay the greatest possible respect to decisions which have been given by my predecessors, at the same time I must say that, valuable as precedents are, I have come to the conclusion that this particular case has very little similarity to the precedents which have been quoted, and that, therefore, they themselves do not really have much bearing on the question I have to decide to-day, and I have looked at the question brought before me entirely on the merits of this particular case. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) have suggested that this Bill as it is now proposed to enter upon the Report stage has been fundamentally altered in its passage through Committee; in other words, that it is an entirely different Bill from that to which the House gave its assent on Second Reading. The suggestion of the
Leader of the Opposition is that I should advise the House on those grounds that the Bill should be withdrawn. The other procedure would be that the House order the Bill to be recommitted and that, of course, is a matter entirely for the House itself.
After giving the matter all the consideration that I can, I have come to a definite conclusion on the matter, and I should like to give to the House the reasons which made me come to the decision to which I have come, and, in doing so, I think I can go over most, if not all of the points referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The Betting Act, 1853, made illegal the keeping of a house, room or place for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, and Clause 1 of this Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading, is designed to exempt from the provision of the Act of 1853 grounds used for horse-racing under the Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee Rules, or both of them. In other words, it proposed to legalise the erection of a building on a racecourse for betting purposes.
In giving these powers which the House proposed to give under the original Bill, it intended that they were to be made effective. The original Bill was something in the nature of a skeleton Bill. The Bill with which we are now asked to proceed is indeed the same skeleton, but the Committee in the exercise of their duties during the course of their debates, have clothed that skeleton with flesh and blood, and have, as it were, created the machinery by which the powers given under that Bill can be made effective. Let me say this, that the Amendments that have been made to the Bill are certainly not an extension of the powers which were given by the House on Second Reading, but they consist of a restriction of persons who may use these powers.
The Leader of the Opposition, in asking me for my Ruling, referred to the Clauses as they come in the Bill. As regards Clause 1, I do not think that it can be said that the instruments known as the totalisator or pari-mutuel were not in the mind of the House during the Second Reading Debate, while the provision of rooms in which bookmakers can conduct their business is a procedure which was obviously contemplated in the Title of the Bill. As regards the Boards which it is
proposed to set up under Clause 2, instead of, as under the original Bill, these powers being available to persons owning or controlling racecourses, they are to be exercised by a Board, or persons licensed by the Board, the constitution of which is defined in the Bill. As regards Clause 4, on which I think the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has laid particular stress, that clearly seems to me within the scope of the Bill as a limitation of the people entitled to make use of the totalisator.
Taking all these things into consideration, and having given this matter all the thought I could, I have come to the definite conclusion that the Bill is really the same Bill to which the House gave its assent on Second Reading, and I cannot, therefore, advise its withdrawal.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I with respect, Sir, ask whether you have considered the meaning of the fundamental change which has taken place in these Clauses by associating the Government officially with this Board, and making this Board responsible first of all to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary responsible to this House, so that questions may be put on the Paper regarding the operations of this Board to the Home Secretary, if this Bill is carried? As you have not been good enough to refer to it, have you considered what really that principle amounts to?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have certainly given that particular point consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be considered to be outside the scope of the Bill. In that respect, I am not prepared to alter my decision.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee,"
The course which we are proposing may be regarded as quite unusual for a Measure of this kind, but it must be remembered that this Bill was conceived in extraordinary circumstances. It was born under unusual conditions, and its passage through the Standing Committee upstairs was the most amazing in the annals of Parliamentary history. I submit that there are two or three points in connection with the passage of this Bill through a Standing Committee that require attention by a body quite apart from that
Committee, a body representative of this House. The Chairman of the Committee which handled this Bill was actually a backer of the Measure, and I felt all along that that was an unfair position. We were called together at unusual hours, and, so far as I have been able to gather, never in the history of this House has a Committee been sitting when the House of Commons has actually risen for the night. The Chairman waited for three-quarters of an hour one day for a quorum, and I am positive that, if a Chairman who was an hon. Member of this side of the House at any time waited for a quorum——

Mr. SPEAKER: May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the Standing Order No. 40A which says:
If a Motion to re-commit a Bill be opposed, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, and shall without further debate put the question thereon.
We cannot, therefore, go into the question of what took place on the Committee stage.

Mr. DAVIES: There is no Member of the House more ready to accept the Ruling of the Chair than I am, and I will proceed at once to give the reasons for recommitting this Bill to a Select Committee. Such a Committee will have power to call witnesses and ask for evidence, probably on oath, as to the fundamental changes that have taken place in this Measure. They have already been mentioned, but I do not think it has been explained what fundamental changes have taken place in this Bill. There are some of us who object absolutely to the State coming into partnership in any betting transactions. We ought to get evidence from social workers, from magistrates, and from members of the Church. I am sure that the Church ought to have a voice on this subject, because, as I have already hinted to the right hon. Gentleman, the Church of England will want to know how he can have one hand on the Prayer Book and the other on the totalisator. The Select Committee would be entitled to ask for the opinions not only of the Churches, social workers and magistrates, but for evidence from representatives of countries where the totalisator
has already been established. I know that in the past Commissions have been appointed to inquire into the specific point of whether a duty ought to be imposed on betting receipts—I believe that has been inquired into on more than one occasion—but there has never been an inquiry into the specific point of whether the State shall become a partner in the doubtful, and I say the vile, transaction of betting. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, so far as I can see his facial expression, is with me all the way. I can read him very well by this time.
I am positive the Select Committee would ask for evidence as to whether—and this is a very important point—in those countries, in India, in Australia and America, where the totalisator has been established, it has had a tendency to increase betting. Then there is the question of the machine itself. It is a huge affair; in one place it will cost £35,000 to establish one machine, with the electrical plant necessary for running it. Evidence ought to be forthcoming as to whether this is not merely a Measure to help the Chancellor to raise more revenue from betting; but whether, in fact, it is not a huge capitalist venture to exploit a vice. As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I must be brief, and I will close with this point. I am as sure as I stand here that the conscience of the majority of the British people is offended by the provisions of this Measure. If I accepted for a single moment the idea which some people hold that betting is not wrong, and that it is not undesirable, and if I accepted, further, the right of the State to become a partner in exploiting betting, I would prefer the totalisator to the human bookmaker. Let me make that perfectly clear.
I say there ought to be an opportunity to give evidence before the Select Committee to show two or three things. First of all, that betting is an evil and a curse, that it has been the cause of the downfall of thousands of decent men and women, and that the establishment of the totalisator would increase betting, would perpetuate the vice, and would make it appear respectable because the State has entered into a partnership in betting. There ought to be evidence from the courts of the land and from the Home
Office itself. If the right hon. Gentleman turned up the Report of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Offences, he would find that betting is on the increase in this land, and that the Committees which have been appointed to report on betting have declared emphatically that it ought to be stopped by all means in our power. A Select Committee ought to be appointed to secure this evidence from social workers, from the Churches, from magistrates and from people who can say what the totalisator has meant in other countries, and, above all, to find out definitely whether this Bill is not clothing a doubtful financial transaction with the sanctity of the law. It is for these reasons that I am moving that the Bill should be re-committed to a Select Committee, and I trust the majority of this House will vote in favour of this Motion and kill this vile thing once for all.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I think the House would desire that I should say a few words on the Motion now before the House——

HON. MEMBERS: What about the Prayer Book?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ettu, Brute!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: —a Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in such a vivacious speech. Everybody knows that to refer a Bill to a Select Committee at this stage of the Session means killing the Bill. I understand that the Bill was before the Committee upstairs on 11 days. That Committee sat for very long periods, and sometimes late in the evening, and devoted itself with great care and with great ability to remodelling some of the provisions of the Bill. The House is now asked to throw over the whole of that work, the whole of the ability expended by one of its own Committees in order nominally to refer the matter to a Select Committee but actually to destroy the Bill for the Session. I am not going to enter into details of the Bill. I am not going to make a Second Reading or a Third Reading speech, as the hon. Member opposite, if he will forgive me for saying so, very nearly did. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill;
all I am going to ask the House to say is, that when a Committee of its own Members have devoted all this time to producing a Bill to be considered on the Report stage, and the House is now prepared to take into consideration those Amendments and to deal with them; and to remodel them if hon. Members so desire, it would be a breach of the ordinary usage of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Church Assembly and the Prayer Book?"]—if we were now to transfer the Bill to a Select Committee with the deliberate intention of killing it.

I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House, whatever may be their views on particular Clauses of the Bill, will say that in deference to the action of their own Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Church Assembly?"]—it is only fair that the House should allow the Bill to proceed.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 144.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[12.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon W. (File, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Storry-Deans, R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lee, F.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Day, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oakley, T.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Barr.


Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cayzar, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balniel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gower, Sir Robert


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cope, Major Sir William
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Capt. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hilton, Cecil
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Margesson, Captain D.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Skelton, A. N.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Iveagh, Countess of
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nuttall, Ellis
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, S. R.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perring, Sir William George
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Rentoul, G. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Womersley, W. J.


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sir Berkeley Sheffield and Major Glyn.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clauses—(Limitation of percentage retained), (Control by County and Borough Councils), (Access of persons under seventeen), (Local Authority to have power to issue and revoke certificates in respect of racecourses) and (Prohibition of use of totalisator on Sunday)—on the Paper seem to me to raise questions which, if they are to be raised at all, would come in more appropriately as Amendments to Clause 3.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I take it that it we put in manuscript Amendments on these points we can move them when we reach Clause 3.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

CLAUSE 1.—(Betting Act, 1853, not to apply to racecourses.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday)—in page 1, line 11, after the word "racecourse" to insert the words "to which the public have not an unrestricted right of access," and similar Amendments on the top of the next page would come in better as Amendments after line 12. The first Amendment that I select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "Racecourse Betting Control Board," and to insert instead thereof the words "Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do you propose, Mr. Speaker, to call on the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to move the new Clause (Limitation of percentage retained)?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have already indicated, that is a question which will come in better as an Amendment to Clause 3.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you in what part of the Bill I shall be able to raise the very substantial question of the redraft of Clause 1. I think the purpose I have in view would be carried out better by the Amendment standing in my name in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
(d) for the Board to authorise the establishment of a place in which bookmakers may carry on their business;
(e) for any person to effect betting transactions with bookmakers in such place.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given these Amendments as careful consideration as I could in the time at my disposal, and I have selected those which I consider to be the most suitable.

Mr. MacDONALD: Could you not be good enough to give Members of the House guidance as to how far your decision with regard to Clause 3 would bring in an Amendment which you say is in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), if it were accepted by the House, would destroy the Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: Did I not hear you say that the hon. Member's subsequent Amendments were in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I said that the point raised in the hon. Member's proposed new Clause (Limitation of percentage retained) would be better raised as an Amendment to Clause 3 than in the form of a new Clause. That applies equally to the other new Clauses. These questions could undoubtedly be raised at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY: May I draw your attention to my Amendment in page 1, line 7, after the word "racecourse," to insert the words "(access to which by persons under the age of seventeen years is forbidden)"? I did not hear you refer to that Amendment, but it deals with a very important point. Did I understand you to say that that Amendment would be in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: That again would come best at a later stage of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), may I put this additional consideration to you, that my hon. Friend's Amendment to which he has referred might be considered to be consequential on the new Clause, which was not before the House on the occasion of the Second Reading, limiting betting by juveniles under the age of 17? I suggest, with great respect, that it would be very fitting if in this particular place the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham could be inserted, or if, at any rate, the advisability of their insertion could be discussed by the House. This matter was not referred to specially on the Second Beading, and, if we pass over the place at which my hon. Friend's Amendment is now put down, we cannot go back and put the words in.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have indicated to the House certain Amendments which I propose to select. The Amendment of the Hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) would come better at a later stage of the Bill, and can be discussed then.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, would it not then be the case that we should have to rely on getting these words inserted in another place? I suggest that it would be better that they should be inserted by this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not mean "another place" in that sense, but another place in the Bill.

Mr. CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to three Amendments to Clause 1 which stand in my name—in page 1, line 7, and line 10, to leave out the word "approved," and, in line 12, to leave out the words "the Racecourse Betting Control Board and"? I note that you have ruled one of these out of order, since, if carried, it would destroy the Bill. These three Amendments were put down by me with the especial purpose of destroying that part of the Bill which was not contemplated when the Bill was given a Second Beading, namely, the association of the State with betting——

Mr. SPEAKER: I have done my best to select these Amendments from all points of view, and I am quite certain that it will be best for me to abide by the Standing Order and not give my reasons for having selected them.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, 10 leave out the words "Racecourse Betting Control Board," and to insert instead thereof the words "Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee."
I would ask the House to turn to Clause 2, where the constitution of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is set out. It is to be composed of 11 members, with an independent chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and, if that passes into law, it will mean that seven members will practically control the whole Committee. Three members are to be appointed by the Jockey Club, two by the National Hunt Committee, one by the Racecourse Association, Limited, and one by the Committee of Tattersalls, while four will be Members of the House of Commons. In a matter like this, seeing that the control of the Board as it is at present constituted will pass into the hands of the Jockey Club, we contend that it would be far better if the Jockey Club had control altogether. We on this side say that the State has no right to
enter into any bargain in matters of this kind, and it is for that reason that we move this Amendment.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: I rise to support this Amendment for very many reasons. My first reason is that I would like to get back to the original conception of things when this Bill was first introduced and during the earlier discussions in Committee. It was not then the purpose of the promoters that there should be any such thing as a Racecourse Betting Control Board. They set out their views very clearly, and their intention was to give to the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee full control of everything pertaining to betting, including the profits accruing from the machine, all the incidental circumstances surrounding the control of racecourses, and all the purposes for which it was thought necessary to put them outside the Act of 1853. As soon, however, as the Measure was sent upstairs to a Committee, we found, to our surprise, that there had been a considerable number of conversations and interviews between Government Departments and the promoters of the Bill. Evidently behind it all was the idea that there was here the possibility of the accumulation of a huge fund, and where there is money there is the incentive to have some hand in it; and no Department more desired to capture some control than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We found, therefore, that the first removal from the original intention was brought about by compromise, and there was put into the hands of many of us a great chart, of which I have a copy here, evidently directed to bringing that into conformity with the idea of the promoters that the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should have sole control, not only of the machine, but of those using racecourses and of all sources from which money might flow in. Evidently the Departments, feeling that they must have some say and some check, set out with the idea of securing a small percentage of the representation on the Control Board. So we have a chart, evidently drawn by someone who is in the habit of drafting pedigrees, for
we find first the Chairman, then the Treasury representative, then the Ministry of Agriculture, the Jockey Club, then the National Hunt Committee and then the Racecourse Association. The first stage was the National Hunt Committee and Jockey Club. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to possible variations of the Betting Tax, I believe, is the cause of the introduction of the Bill and of his being so anxious to persuade the Cabinet to have this Board of Control with a Treasury representative on it. Then the Minister of Agriculture was added with the innocent, simple idea of associating the Horsebreeding Society, and the Chairman was to be a person recommended by the National Hunt Committee and the Jockey Club.
That was the first stage of their intention after the Control Board had been agreed to. Then they said: "We must have control of the Totalisator Fund. We will have secured to us out of the eight suggested, five members of the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee and the Racecourse Association, and the Chairman shall be our nominee." That will only leave the Treasury representative and the Ministry of Agriculture representative. That was to be their first Control Board. They were to establish this fund, they were to have full control of its administration, they were to have power to borrow and to lend on the security of the Fund. Then the matter developed and it was felt the Home Secretary must be brought in, because they were doubtful how the Board of Control would actually control in the interests of the general racing community. Then we found the desire growing to readjust the balance of the Control Board until we have in the Bill as now reported a Board of Control entirely unsatisfactory, which has grown from a possible five of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, then to eight, under pressure from the Treasury or some Government Department, and eventually to 11—all the interests apparently that want to have a finger in the pie clamouring for representation.
I should like the Home Secretary to realise the grave responsibility he is accepting for all time for his Department. He is accepting the responsibility of having to endorse anyone suggested
by the Associations, and he will have to consult the same interests before he can get his Chairman. He must also check the whole of the balance sheet and approve of the manner in which this ill-gotten money is dispersed. The Department itself will gradually develop into a Home Department, not for the defence and protection of the people of the country but to assist persons to evade what may be a great moral responsibility. He will have, whether he likes it or not, to conform to this part of the Bill, which the. Board of Control will operate, which will give facilities ad lib. for young persons to bet. It is said the criminal element that utilises racecourses now will develop. I question it, because I do not know that there are more doubtful characters who go to a race meeting than go to the Stock Exchange or any other great gamble or financial venture that may be on the market. A person drawing some hundreds of pounds from a machine will attract the attention of the doubtfuls, who find it is not profitable to be there now—I mean the professional pickpocket.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He goes there now."]. He will be there in greater numbers if a greater temptation is put in front of him.
The Board of Control that is proposed is entirely unsatisfactory. Have the promoters of the Bill altered their mind or are they going to support our Amendment? Originally it was to be directly and fully under the control of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. Do they want now to transfer their responsibility to a Government Department? Do the Government Departments want to make this a first step towards the general legalisation of betting transactions, whether on racecourses or not, whether in the street or in the office, dog racing or any other form of racing? Have the Government Departments accepted a share in the responsibility of this Board of Control in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find out to what extent he can utilise this form of money transaction to extort a larger contribution towards the general revenue of the State, and if the experiment in this compromised form, part Government, part Jockey Club, and part National Hunt Committees, turns out favourably from the income point of view, are we to expect that the Government Departments will come to the House and say: "We
do not mind what crime you commit. We do not mind what the net result in the general moral or condition of the people may be from our action so long as it brings us a revenue." That is a very poor outlook if that is to be the outlook of the Government from their representation on this Board of Control. I would rather face the issue straight away. It is estimated that through the machine there might be, after the 2 per cent. of tax is taken away, a sum verging on £750,000 available for the Board of Control on the basis of 8 per cent. Out of that £750,000 the Home Office or the Government representatives, the Jockey Club, and the National Hunt Committee are to say: "Here is a surplus. What are we to do with it?" What influence will the Government Departments have upon the decision? They will have very little.
A very small percentage of the surplus will be suggested for charity. A larger proportion of it will be suggested for increased prizes, stakes, allocations for breeding purposes, allocations for reducing charges of admission to the general race-going public and for improving the amenities of the racecourse, for improving the sport of horse-racing, for buying land to make racecourses bigger, for introducing more machines and so giving greater facilities for betting. The incentive once started in respect of these things will never stop. If £750,000 accrues as a surplus after tax deduction in one year, and it is thought that there is still a flow of money passing to the bookmaker that ought to be attracted to the machine, they will begin to advertise. What will the Home Office think about that responsibility being placed on the Board of Control? Just picture the hoardings round the racecourse meetings, and the advertisements in the Press—and I sometimes think that the Press are boosting this proposal, because they are looking forward to a source of income from advertising. The Home Secretary, as a Member of the Board of Control, will be a party to advertising the facilities of the machine. The machine will not necessarily be a totalisator, because, later on, you may see another machine. It is said that it may be a perambulating machine, a machine taken from one small course to another. The actual words are here whereby that machine or another may be introduced. It may be, as I said upstairs, a diddlum machine, a slot
machine. You would put your money, the 8 per cent. would come out, and you might get some sort of return and you might not. Is the Home Secretary to become a party to diddling? Is he to be a diddler? Is the Board of Control to operate a machine for this very doubtful purpose?
I said that I would rather face the issue straight away. I would rather say to the Jockey Club and to the National Hunt Committee—I would rather the Government Department take up an attitude and say: "We do not want to touch it until we have had an inquiry; until an inquiry into all the betting laws of the country has taken place, and we ourselves or some Government in the future may be able to bring in a well-considered, comprehensive scheme and submit it on the Floor of the House of Commons. We do not want to be dragged in, so to speak. We do not want to be the cloak to cover the mercenary machinations of the Jockey Club or the mercenary machinations of the National Hunt Committee. We do not want to be part of a Board of Control to give the cloak of sanctity, or the robe of respectability to this thing, in order that people will forget and lose sight of the real intentions." I would rather the Government Department say: "We will control this ourselves. We will own the machines; we will let out the machines to the racecourse companies. We will enter into the business side of the transaction. We will make it a great State enterprise." Of course, they will not do that, because they are pledged to private vested interests. However, as they are now in this business I would like them to leave the Board of Control and not become contaminated with the evils following the introduction of this machine.
It is very often said in connection with racecourse proceedings that there are gentlemen who practise the confidence trick. I do not say that members of the National Hunt Committee or the Jockey Club are trying to practise the confidence trick on the Government Departments but I do suggest that they feel that the public and the racing element have not the amount of confidence regarding fair administration that they would like them to have, and in order to secure that confidence, they want to bring in the Government Departments and be able to say:
"Well, now, there you are; we are above suspicion. The Government now take a hand in it." Why not say to the Jockey Club and to the National Hunt Committee—and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to say this: "We have given you exemption from a certain Act of Parliament to do certain things—and since the Bill has been upstairs it is the intention to do many things that originally it was not intended to do and you have led us along the wrong path—and now we want to part company with you. We want to have nothing to do with you, and you can start on your own." That would be frank, at least, because whatever the crimes might be, whatever the defalcations, whatever the very doubtful processes arising from the general operation of their powers might be, the Government of the day would only bear that part of the blame which they were entitled to bear for having given the control of the machine to the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee and they would be free from actual participation in those acts. If the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee want to borrow money, if they want to become parties to the flotation of a great financial ramp in the erection of totalisator machines, let them do it, but let the public have full knowledge that it is their act and not an act backed by a Government Department. The Board of Control can issue a prospectus inviting a loan, and under the terms of this Bill the Treasury or the Home Office are to help in the issuing of the prospectus, which will invite people to subscribe at 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. or some other percentage, in order to finance the totalisator manufacturers, who are already very busy getting ready.
Some of us have been met in the outer Lobby and have been asked why we were opposing this Measure. When we asked the interrogators what was their interest in the Bill, they replied: "We represent the totalisator company and we want to get on with these machines." I said to them, "You will want to put them down anywhere," and they replied, "Yes, why not?" That is only part of the general propaganda. I do not want a Government Department involved in that kind of propaganda or to be a party to the insidious articles which have appeared in this morning's newspapers. I want the Government to be left out of it.
The Board of Control will have power to buy or sell land. They may enclose, under certain circumstances, common lands, unless those lands are protected by other Acts of Parliament They may enclose allotments, unless the land is covered by some other Act of Parliament, and they may take the land of tenant farmers, unless it is covered by some other Act of Parliament. We were told that words would be found to resolve the doubts which many of us feel on these matters. If the Government Department are to be represented on the Board of Control, are they going to take a hand in this sort of thing? Has there not been enough common land filched from the people? I have only mentioned a few of the grave doubts and fears that we feel as to the actions of the Board of Control.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Are we to understand from the hon. Member that if the House accepts his Amendment and thereby drops the Government part of the Board of Control, that he and his party will, on their part, drop their opposition to the introduction of the totalisator?

Mr. HAYDAY: That is a most extraordinary question to ask. I have no doubt that it was asked in the best of grace and with the best of intentions. The hon. Member asks me whether in the event of the House accepting this Amendment, the opposition to the totalisators will be withdrawn. Imagine what that would mean. It would mean——

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better not imagine too much. We had better confine ourselves to the subject-matter covered by the Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: I agree with you Mr. Speaker. There was too much supposition about the question of my hon. Friend and it led me into a little assumption or imagination. I can imagine in my own mind, without telling the House, what could flow from any answer which I might give to the hon. Member's question. Briefly, my answer to the hon. Member is that in view of all the evils that would flow from complete control by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, my opposition would be intensified.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Therefore, this is merely a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: Nothing of the sort. Far from being a wrecking Amendment it is an attempt to save the Government. I will not ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me from innuendoes, because——[An HON. MEMBER: "Protect the bookies."] An hon. Member says: "Protect the bookies." I think that is entirely unfair. The principal promoters of the Bill will do me the credit of admitting that I have never indulged in innuendoes which attributed any close association with any of the elements on either side. I think the discussion in Committee was fairly broad and generous. If I cannot speak my point of view here without innuendoes being thrown out to the effect that I am here purposely to protect the bookmakers, I would say that I have as much right to protect the living of the bookmaker as hon. Members opposite have to protect the gambler in stocks and shares. When any man or woman is going to have an infliction placed upon them, I am entitled, without damaging my general principles, to give to them whatever assistance I can.
Far from this being a wrecking Amendment it is a lifeline to the Government, if they will only catch hold of it. Will they let the opportunity go by; perhaps the last? We want to pull the Government Departments out of the torrents that are carrying them on to destruction. We want to pull them into safety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let them go."] My hon. Friends say. "Let them go." No. I want to save them, if possible, but if they are to be condemned, then let them be their own verdict. The Bill has been materially changed. In the first place, it was to be merely a question of control by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. Next, there was introduced a modified Board of Control, under pressure from the Treasury or some other Government Department, and there was contention as to whether the intention of the Amendments would take away some of the power to which they were tenaciously clinging. These things develop and STOW and the elements of evil accumulate in greater volume. It is high time that we struck out all this subject matter of the Board of Control.
If the Amendment is carried the Government Department will be freer to give us that valuable help we think they can give by placing restrictions on the
operations of the Board of Control. The Government Department will be able to step in untainted and pure, and with those great aspirations which always belong to a Government Department and say to the Board of Control: "You have abused the powers which the House of Commons gave you, and we, the defenders of the morals of the people and the rights of the nation, will revoke those powers." Are you likely to get that detached point of view if the Department is part of the Board of Control? If it is in collusion with the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee how will it be able to part company with them? How will it be able to say: "You should not have done this. You have abused your powers." I often think that in cases where the Cabinet is undecided as to what it should do—in cases like this—they should call in a few hon. Members from each party in the House. I should like to meet the Cabinet myself and give expression to my views. I think I might eventually be able to bring them round to my point of view and persuade them to have nothing to do with this Board of Control.
1.0 p.m.
I do not think the Cabinet realise the great responsibilities they are accepting by attaching this Government Department to this Board of Control, and if they were approached by unbiased persons by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and myself and three or four of my hon. Friends, we might be able to put before them considerations which have not so far received their attention. As a matter of fact, we were congratulated by the promoters of the Bill in the Committee upstairs for putting ideas into their heads which had never occurred to them so far as the composition of the Board of Control was concerned, but they were too deeply committed to give way to the common-sense point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Barnstaple and myself. Behind this Bill stands the taskmaster, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the driving power. The Government have gone so far that they cannot go back and are closing their eyes to the possible results. They are taking a hand in the control of this implement, this piece of machinery,
not for the good of the nation, but for the professed purpose of giving increased facilities for betting. You are going to launch these machines, and unless you have well considered the end, the pace and direction which this movement will take, you will find that you have sealed the fate not only of the Government but of the people of this country, simply in order to satisfy the vested interests of those concerned in these machines, those who are looking forward to the monetary results which will flow from them. But you will injure your own reputation beyond repair.
This Board of Control—there are four or five, the Jockey Club, and the National Hunt Committee. I wonder why the promoters did not recommend the representation of the owners of these machines. They have as much right to be represented as anybody else. They have as much right to be represented as Tattersalls, although I must not say any more on that point at the moment. I shall have something to say about the actual composition of the Board when we reach that Clause. It is the principle on which the Board is founded which is interesting me at the moment. From February of the present year, when the Ballot gave the hon. and Gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) facilities for a Second Beading, we have been discussing the composition of the Control Board throughout all the stages of the Bill, at 11 o'clock at night in Committee, at a quarter to 12 at night in Committee, no reasoning allowed, no proper opportunities given for adequately submitting our arguments, and, as we were denied facilities upstairs for giving our reasons for objecting to this Control Board, we must give them on the Floor of the House of Commons When we were debating the matter in Committee our arguments were cut short by the Closure—fortunately we kept wonderful control of our tempers in the circumstances. The promoters were always watching the clock. Every time the matter came up for discussion they looked up at the clock and before the second speech was started the Closure was moved. They were afraid that if the light of discussion was allowed to penetrate the darkness that covered their efforts——[Interruption]. If only we had been permitted to do what we wanted to do, you would not have had my right hon. Friend raising his point to-day as to the
complete alteration of the whole purpose of the Bill. I have here a document which I have received.

HON. MEMBERS: Read it!

Mr. HAYDAY: If I am pressed by hon. Members opposite to read it I shall do so. It really is fundamental to a proper understanding of the Bill. It says:
The Racecourse Betting Control Board shall consist of a chairman, a Treasury representative, a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture …
and then between these three there is a long series of secretaries and office staff. Then from the secretarial department flow two representatives of the Jockey Club, two of the National Hunt Committee and one of the Racecourse Association. The document states that the five representatives, two from the Jockey Club, two from the National Hunt Committee and one from the Racecourse Association, Ltd., are nominated by the bodies that they represent and need not be members of those bodies. The Chairman is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The document goes on:
Names will be submitted by the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee of persons who are not members of either body but who are considered suitable candidates. The Chairman may be paid a salary which the R.C.B.C.B. may determine, which, together with other secretarial expenses, will be paid out of the operating expenses of the totalisator fund.
I do not think I shall read the whole of the document, for I have some consideration for my hon. friends opposite. They would like, however, to be satisfied as to the arguments in favour of my contentions. Many of these things were left obscure upstairs and I am now trying to bring them out into the light of day. The Home Secretary ought to keep this document in mind. It indicates to him how he has drifted from his first step on a venture. He will find that he is following dead men's tracks. If he takes the sequence of these suggestions he will find how far he has travelled from pastures fresh and refreshing into the sandy deserts of desolation. The company with which it is proposed that the right hon. Gentleman shall journey will take his trusting hand and lead him to the racecourse, lead him to the machine. He will then find that he has indeed travelled a long way in a very short time,
and that all those nice things which he quite rightly teaches us have been destroyed by his association with all these incentives to gambling. A further point in the document is the following:
There shall be no alteration in the existing laws concerning betting unless a certificate is granted by a Statutory body.
The Statutory body will be known as the Racecourse Betting Control Board. It was originally intended to be the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, but this is the compromise. This is the Board which will grant the certificates. I would rather it were the National Hunt Committee and the Jockey Club. Really I am making this special plea for the Home Secretary, because I know how sound are his foundations on all questions of morality, and I know his desire to carry forward the flaming light of truth and justice. I want to reclaim him before he goes too far. Another point about this Board of Control will have to be considered:—
They will only grant certificates under stringent regulations based on the provisions of this Bill, and in no circumstances unless the R.C.B.C.B. are fully satisfied that such regulations will be enforced by those persons to whom such certificate is granted. The existing position and powers of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee for regulating racing remain unimpaired.
You can see what that means. The Government Departments ought to know that, whatever influence they may have—it will be very little on the Board of Control—they cannot take away the power of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, because those two bodies will still have the very important right reserved to them of regulating racing. Their powers are to remain unimpaired. It will mean that the Jockey Club, no longer the sole controllers of the "tote" and all things associated with it, can now say to the Board of Control, "We did not give up any of our powers when we went on to the Board of Control. The Government took none of our ordinary powers away. We shall borrow money from the surplus of the 'tote' through the Board of Control, and we shall put down further racecourses." Race meetings will grow from four a year to 20 a year on some of the racecourses, because of this great incentive. The document further says:
The statutory authority shall be the sole authority charged with the control of bet-
ting on racecourses … and shall have jurisdiction over betting only on such racecourses.
There is quite a lot more of it, but I would like to put my point briefly. [Laughter.] Well, I cannot help the magnitude and importance of the subject, and I must ask hon. Members not to be impatient.

Mr. VARLEY: Will the hon. Member explain from what document he is reading?

Mr. HAYDAY: If the hon. Member had been in his place earlier, he would have heard the question which has prompted me to take up this matter. The document from which I am reading is a chart which was sent round to members of the Standing Committee—not to all the Members—showing how they proposed to set up the Board of Control.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: Who are "they"?

Mr. HAYDAY: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has asked that question and that there is a general desire on the part of Members to know all about this matter. This particular communication was sent round in order to show how the Bill would look if the promoters' Amendments to it were carried. Halfway through our discussion upstairs the promoters actually prepared a draft showing how the Bill would emerge. When my hon. and learned Friend asks me as to what source it came from, I may say that it was accompanied by a little circular expressing the hope that we would appreciate it, and that it would enable us better to understand what was in the minds of the promoters who said they did not desire to take up the time of the Standing Committee and thought it better to adopt this means of explaining the position of the Control Board which was a matter of great importance. As to the number of these circulars sent out, I hope hon. Members will not press their queries on that point at this stage. I have a number of copies of the document here and if any hon. Member desires to look through it and to seek for any explanation of it, I shall be willing to oblige him.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I should like to know if representations were made by any
representative bodies to members of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. HAYDAY: I think Members of the Committee will confirm me in what I am about to say. When we reached the stage of considering the Board of Control, there was one occasion on which the Committee failed to get a quorum. Before the Committee met on the next occasion, members of the Jockey Club were in another Committee Room with supporters of the Bill in order to urge that the latter should attend more regularly at the Committee meetings; and it is fair to assume that, among other matters discussed then, was the question of the Jockey Club conserving to themselves the balance of power on the Control Board. I hope that will satisfy my hon. and learned Friend. To resume my consideration of this document, I may point out that from the funds of which the Board of Control will have charge, there are to be deducted all duties, taxes, rates and similar charges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will see to that. The deductions are also to include all sums due in respect of principal and interest of monies borrowed; working expenses and salaries, and a sum to be set aside in reserve for meeting contingencies. What are the contingencies? What contingency has the Home Office in mind? Is it the possible need for a larger staff for policing the precincts of the place where the totalisator is to be erected and the approaches thereto? Is a certain amount of the money accruing as a surplus to be used to provide protection for those who use the machine and to safeguard them when they are in the position of getting anything from the machine as a result of their bets? Then there is an arrangement for the payment of such sums as may be decided upon between the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Club in accordance with any scheme approved by the Racecourse Control Board as being conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses, the promotion of the sport of horse-racing or for some charitable object.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present——

Mr. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether reading that paper is relevant to the Amendment
before the House, and whether the introduction of a large quantity of irrelevant matter is not thoroughly out of order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member, and I have no doubt that this particular paper does refer to the subject-matter of the Amendment. I was not in the House during the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech, but from what I have heard I think I must remind him that he must not read over again or repeat what he may have read or said in an earlier part of his speech.

Mr. HAYDAY: I have been particularly cautious in keeping clear of repetition, and I do not think I have said anything while you have been in the Chair Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I had said previously while Mr. Speaker himself was in the Chair. As a matter of fact, I have been pressed so often to give a full account of the contents of this document, which was their own suggestion for the Board of Control, that I thought it right to read from it, and I have only read three extracts. My hon. Friends seem to feel it so important that, unless the House would adjourn in order that the document could be typed and distributed, I think I must read some more of it, with your permission, Sir. I was asked by an hon. Friend behind me about this question of a certificate, of which this Board of Control had charge, and to which I objected. Under the heading in their scheme of "Certificate," it reads:
The granting of a certificate to exempt racecourses by the provisions of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, from the penalties and disabilities of the Act of 1853 and certain other Statutes, and by the recognition of 'a place.'"—
I ought to mention that a "place" is that part intended for the erection of the machine, or alternatively it would be a place for such bookmakers as may eventually be permitted to bet on a racecourse—
to enable totalisators and similar machines to be operated subject to the conditions of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1923. Certificates may also be revoked subject to such limitations and conditions as may be decided upon by the R.B.C.B.

Mr. GROVES: What is that?

Mr. HAYDAY: That is the Racecourse Betting Control Board. The document continues:
Certificates will only be granted if application is made for them in proper form.
That really suggests another point to my mind, not as to what the 1853 Act is, but it prompts another point of view upon this question of a certificate. It will be noticed that the Board of Control will only issue licences to such racecourse companies as make application, so that you will have in this country, under the Racecourse Betting Control Board, with which Government Departments are associated, one set of racecourses approved, but the racecourses that are not approved will not have the protection of this particular Act, if it becomes an Act, because they must carry on with all the risks associated with the present law; so that we shall have two or three Government Departments, on the one hand, saying that this racecourse which is approved will have the protection of this Measure, but the smaller meetings, the point-to-point meetings, will not be approved.

Mr. CONNOLLY: What are they?

Mr. HAYDAY: Point-to-point meetings——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment and not attempt to explain racing lore to hon. Members who know less of it than he does.

Mr. HAYDAY: Perhaps I should explain that originally the promoters, on the back of their Bill, said that the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee were to have full control of all racecourses, the machines and the bookmakers, but they had to shed some of that power, under pressure, I believe, from Government Departments, and they then set up a compromise Board of Control. Since then it has developed further, so that in the Bill that is now before us the Board of Control is entirely altered in its composition, and that is why I want to get back to the original, because of powers which, if used in association with a Governement Department attached to the Board of Control, might give to the State an amount of doubt and suspicion that we do not desire in any way to associate with the State. Surely we are sound in that reasoning, because we ourselves are ex-
pecting to take office at no very distant date, and we should not like to have an instrument passed on from the present Government Departments to Departments represented by a Labour Minister, and find that they had already been committed to practices entirely against their nature and against the principles for which they stand. I am sure we all appreciate that if a doubtful or suspicious act is committed, there might be a reverend gentleman in the company of a doubtful customer, and the doubtful customer might pass on to him something the full significance of which, in his innocence, he did not understand, but eventually he might be roped into the atmosphere, and all his high qualities be crushed and smashed because of that innocent desire on his part to help.
We do not want the Government Departments to be brought into that kind of position, because we are certain that if this Bill becomes an Act, before the first totalisator which the Control Board is called upon to administer has a full chance, the people of the country, the Churches, and all the moral associations will be up in arms against them, and if, just at that period, the Government go out of office and a new Government come in, the continuity of that will be unfair to the incoming party, if they find themselves committed to practices of that character. I see in his place the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who gave us considerable help and assistance in pointing out to the promoters the error of their ways in the framing of their proposals for the establishment of this Board of Control. He gave great help, which was universally welcomed, and he tried with us to pull the promoters out of the mire and morass into which they had dropped. I am sure he will convey my few remarks to the Home Secretary, and I would like the Home Secretary to defend his attitude. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say quite emphatically, "Yes, I do want to become a member of that authority, to have my representative there, to sit with them and see that this money is properly handed out."
I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come here and tell us exactly what is in his mind. He is involved in this, because he is trying to extract money. Having failed to get it in the volume he
desired from one source, he is trying another way. I would like him to be here to defend his attitude. Why cannot he say that if this is carried he will review the whole incidence of the taxes? But I do not want him to go on the Control Board. Although, perhaps, I may have spoken in rather louder tones than usual, it is because I have an intense feeling on this subject, on which I cannot give real expression to my inmost thoughts or say some of the things I would like to say. I support the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS: As far as this Amendment is concerned, I think something should be said in favour of the Bill as it stands. At present we are represented on the Government Front Bench only by a representative of Scotland. There was another representative of the Government present a short time ago, but he voted against this Bill on Second Reading, and it almost looks as if the Bill were being left derelict at the present time. When an Amendment has been moved of such vital importance as this one, I certainly think that some Member who was on the Committee upstairs ought to get up and say why a Control Board has been substituted for the original proposal in the Bill. I find myself in an extraordinarily difficult position. Over and over again I have bad to help supporters of the Bill out of a hole upstairs. I have been called upon to play the part of the Good Samaritan, and have helped them along the road when they became weary and worn with their duties.
Originally, if my memory serves me aright, there was some objection taken to the Bill in the old form, on the ground that the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee had too much power, and that there should be some means of supervision and re-organisation to see that these vast funds were administered in a right and suitable way. I feel sure that every Member of the House will render his tribute to the excellent, able and, if I may say so, almost attenuated speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). I notice that the House paid him a very rare compliment. It was as much amused at the end of his speech as at the beginning. That is a compliment very seldom paid even to Cabinet Ministers when they make their most important speeches. I see that the Home Secretary is now in
the House, and no doubt he will have something to say on this particular point. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that the Government ought not to be contaminated in any way by dealing with betting transactions or supervising them. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view, but, after all, a Government does not necessarily contaminate itself by arresting a highwayman or putting him in prison. It does not necessarily contaminate itself by exercising a fair supervision over betting. I do not think it has been quite sufficiently realised that betting exists at the present time, and that it is quite conceivable that if a Control Board of this kind be properly set up it may ultimately be for the good of the highest moral standard of the country as a whole. I put that as a proposition, for which, I think, there is something to be said. I believe that the Home Secretary will be able to put it very much stronger than I do.
Whatever may be said on the other side, the Board has been set up by the Committee upstairs in answer to a very definite and very clear demand that there should be some control over the Jockey Club and the other body, and I think, on the whole, there is a great deal to be said against the Amendment. Having listened to a very large part of the Debates upstairs, and to a certain proportion of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham, I thought someone ought to keep the discussion going until the Home Secretary could come to give us his views. The question that the House has to consider is, whether it is better to have a committee controlled entirely by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, or a Control Board. Weighing up those two factors, we have to remember that the interest of this Board is far wider than that of the Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee. It is not fair that this Board should be in the hands of these two excellent bodies only. It would be better if we had a wider Committee than that which would result from the passing of this Amendment. I have taken an impartial point of view on this Bill, but I shall have to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. MARCH: I am opposed to betting in any shape or form everywhere, anywhere and anyhow. But when I saw
that this Board was being reformed I was more opposed to this Bill than ever. The Government are wrong in being part and parcel of the Control Board. They ought not to be associated with betting transactions. You are giving this body power to license betting on approved racecourses, and because the Government are taking their part in it, people will naturally think that this has been nicely framed and that everything that they do will be in order. This is a case of providing law for one set of people, that is, those who attend approved racecourses. Betting, however, is demoralising where-ever it is done. In the case of betting in the street the Home Secretary and his Department are on the look-out for those who take part, and the bookmaker and the person who bets will be liable to be hauled up before a court by the servants of the Home Office. What opportunity does the Home Secretary think that anybody will have who desires people to have better morals and to spend their money in better directions than betting, if it is made legal for people to bet to what extent they like on approved racecourses. Yet there are millions of people who are unable to go to racecourses, but who think that they are entitled to bet if they desire to do so, who are liable to be hauled up and prosecuted. These people will turn round and say, "The Government itself is associated with betting transactions. They are represented on the Control Board to issue the certificates approving of racecourses, and if it is good and right for them, why is it not good and right for us to bet wherever we may want to?" It would have been better if the Government had left it in the hands of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. While the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) was speaking, two members on the opposite side said, "You want to return this to-private enterprise." Certainly, let private enterprise go on with it if they want to, and do not let us have the Government mixed up in it. The Government would be better advised to accept this Amendment and leave it to the two bodies that were first proposed as the bodies to deal with it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would like to give the reasons why this Clause was suggested by me to the promoters of the Bill. I am afraid that I
cannot give myself the pleasure of going through the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), which we all enjoyed so much. I thank him for his offer to attend the Cabinet, but I would remind him, if he desires to give us his advice, that concise speeches are most useful to us in Cabinet discussions. The operation of the Betting Act, 1853, technically prevented the institution of a totalisator, and as the Bill was originally drawn, it simply provided that the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee was to be allowed to remove it from any particular racecourse from which either body might decide that it should be removed. Directly the Home Office saw that Clause, they came to this conclusion. Here are two private bodies—quite estimable bodies—the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee—and if the Bill be passed in the form in which it is submitted by the promoters either of these private bodies will have it in their power to say whether a thing is a crime at law or not. That is the sole point behind the long series of Amendments setting up the Control Board. As the law stands, it is a crime in certain circumstances to bet. The Jockey Club would have the power to say that it should be legal for the hon. Member for West Nottingham and myself to go and bet at a course approved by them to-day, and they might withdraw their licence to-morrow, and then if he and I were to go to the same place and to bet we should be committing a crime. It is quite impossible, I say it advisedly, for Parliament to allow any non-statutory body to say that a thing shall be a crime one day or a crime in one place and not a crime the next day, and not a crime in another place.
That was the real difficulty which met us when the Bill was first introduced, and I asked the Jockey Club to come to see me. I will be frank in the matter. I am not responsible for the Bill, which is a private Bill, but it must be remembered that the House of Commons gave a Second Reading to it, and, therefore, we must assume, as I have assumed in all my correspondence and interviews with the Jockey Club, that the House of Commons desired—may be it was by a small majority, but it was by a majority—to authorise the totalisator. It is
really impossible for the Home Secretary, who is the administrator of the law and, so to speak, the guardian of the law, and the guardian of the right of the people not to have new crimes put upon their shoulders, to allow a Bill to go through the House in that form without stating to the House the really strong objection there was from the legal point of view, to the Bill as it was drawn. Accordingly, as the result of interviews between Mr. Stewart of the Jockey Club and myself at the Home Office, my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of the Bill agreed to submit to the Committee upstairs a certain Amendment which would take away from the Jockey Club the autocratic power of making a new crime, and transfer that power to a statutory Board on which the Government could have representation.

Mr. TINKER: But the majority on that Board will not be in the hands of the Government. The majority will be in the hands of the same people.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the Government will be represented on that Board. The first thing I had to consider was that there should be a statutory Board with legal authorities. The composition of the Board will come on later. One must deal with these matters in some sort of order, and I should be ruled out of order if I discussed the composition of the Board now, but I had to ask my hon. and gallant Friend that instead of an irresponsible body there should be a statutory body to whom Parliament would delegate the power of licensing—no, not licensing, approving racecourses upon which, and upon which only, the totalisator could be used. That is really all that is involved in the setting up of the Control Board. The hon. Member for East Nottingham suggested, quite good-naturedly, that I am going down the steep and slippery slope, and, with a mixture of metaphors, talked about throwing out the life-line and launching the life-boat, and various other means of dragging me back.

Mr. HAYDAY: Anything in a desperate effort to rescue you.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I appreciate his kindness in wanting to rescue me, but what I want the House to realise is that it was a purely legal consideration
which caused me to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to agree that a statutory body should be set up. I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. It would throw the Bill back to the old position, and then I could not advise any House of Commons to pass it. I could not advise the House of Commons to pass a Bill leaving to an irresponsible Board, however reputable it might be, to make new crimes in this country. If I am to treat the hon. Member's arguments seriously, as I am sure he would wish me to do, I must point out that he has said that if this Amendment were passed and the matter were to revert to the Jockey Club, it would intensify his opposition to the Bill. That being so, I think he cannot ask me to treat his Amendment as a very serious one, because from his own point of view it is an Amendment which would make the Bill worse rather than better. This matter has been very carefully considered by my legal advisers and myself, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment and pass the provision creating a statutory body as the body to take charge. The composition of the statutory body, whether it is to include the Home Secretary or any other Member of the Government, and who is going to be the Chairman, are matters for subsequent consideration; but I ask the House to reject this Amendment and to enshrine in the Bill a statutory body.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will not the Control Board still have a controlling voice in saying where betting may take place, apart from the Home Office?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Home Secretary has divulged one secret to the House in his short speech, because he has told us that the Home Office was responsible for the Clause which is fundamental to the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: For the principle.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. DAVIES: All that the Clause does is to clothe the principle. The right hon. Gentleman has put a point which I think is very important so far as this Bill is concerned. He has declared that he wants a statutory body because he would not like any other body to have the power to de-
cide whether a certain action was a crime or not. But is it not a fact that he still falls short of the object which he had in view? After all, the Control Board will be the authority to approve certain racecourses, and those approved racecourses will then be taken out of the purview of the Betting Act, 1853, while racecourses which are not approved will still be under the provisions of the Act of 1853. Therefore, I submit that the Control Board in deciding which racecourses shall be approved decides also at the same time whether an action by a person is a crime or not. In establishing the Control Board we are not merely giving it Statutory authority but, I venture to say, we are in a sense making it in part a judicial body as well, because it is going to determine whether an act committed on a certain racecourse is a crime or not.
Let me pass on to another consideration of what we are about to do. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we are not entitled at this point to discuss the personnel of the Control Board, but I give him notice in advance that we shall want to have some indication of its composition. I understand, whether he is aware of it or not, that the composition of the Board is well on the way to being settled.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Including the Chairman?

Mr. DAVIES: Upstairs we appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury to that post. I do not know whether we were right or not, but we thought he would keep the turf clean. Having cleared up that point, let us see what the Amendment proposes to do. If hon. Members will turn to the Bill, they will find that what we are proposing to do, in effect, is-to bring the Bill back to the status quo. The Home Secretary will have seen the memorandum of the original Bill, where it was stated quite definitely that the controlling authority should be the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) explained very fully all the implications of what we want to do by this Amendment, and his speech was very enlightening all the way through. I only wish that I possessed the great qualities which my hon. Friend has displayed to-day.
I would like to bring the Home Secretary down to the actual facts of the situation. The Amendment proposes to bring the Bill back to its original form by giving the control to the National Hunt Committee and the Jockey Club instead of placing the control in the hands of the Betting Control Board. I have been looking up the history of gaming and betting, and, if anybody desires to find out what has happened in this country on this subject, I would advise him to read the Encyclopædia Britannica on "Gaming." He will find that for the first time in the history of this country the State is going to give an air of respectability to gaming and betting. That is what offends the little bit of conscience which I possess. All through our history, Kings, Parliaments and statesmen for the five or six centuries that Parliament has existed have always done their best to suppress betting, gambling, and gaming, and they have penalised all those who took part in those transactions. Now it is left to a Tory Government, in the year 1928, and to the Home Secretary, who is a sincere Protestant with a puritanical heart and mind, after six centuries of suppression of gaming and betting in this land, to be the the first in the long history of Parliamentary government to suggest that we should become part and parcel of the body that is going to take charge of gaming and betting in this land. I say, after the reading I have done on this subject, that betting and gaming have always been suppressed in this country, because undoubtedly it was held that for the State to allow betting and gaming and gambling to exist always tends to destroy the fibre of the nation that permits it. There is no doubt about that fact.
I will tell the Home Secretary what I am afraid of. In the first place, the Betting Duty; secondly, the totalisator to collect the Betting Duty because the bookmakers will not be able to perform that function; thirdly, because I understand there is a Bill on the stocks to legalise betting, and the next stage, if we allow all these things to be carried on, will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will establish in Whitehall a national State sweepstake. Then, we shall be back in the position in which France, Belgium and other countries have
got in regard to this question, and our morals will be lowered to the position which I have already mentioned. I feel sure that the Home Secretary does not apprehend all the points. [Interruption.] When the small Committee of the Cabinet sitting on the Front Bench opposite has finished discussing other matters of State, I will explain what I mean. The Betting Control Board will have power, not only to buy and sell land, but to borrow money and loan money, and they will have power to do one thing which I do not want the State to have anything to do with; they will have the power to promote horse-racing in this country. I would like the Home Secretary to give me his attention.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. DAVIES: I noticed when I got up to speak during the Committee stage the promoters of this Bill were in the habit of turning their faces to the clock, and, if I cannot have the attention of the Home Secretary I will sit down at once. The Home Secretary has told us that he advised the establishment of a betting control board, because he did not think it was proper to allow a body without statutory authority to determine whether an action was a crime or not. That was the narrow point which the right hon. Gentleman put before the House in justification of his action. Let us see what is the result. The real trouble is that when betting and gaming once start you cannot stop until you reach the natural end. That is what has happened in regard to the Betting Duty. The Betting Control Board will be empowered to collect money, not only for revenue purposes, but also for charitable purposes. We were told, quite frankly, during the Committee stage upstairs, that in France they collected large sums of money by means of the totalisator, and that the vast majority of French hospitals were maintained by money collected through the totalisator.
The argument was used that France evaded some of its responsibilities under the Treaty of Versailles because it imposed this tax in an indirect way. I want to know if the Home Secretary understands that the Betting Control Board fails in regard to the one fundamental which he has raised this afternoon, because it still has the power to
determine whether the place shall be approved or not, and, in determining that point, it also determines incidentally whether an action committed in a certain place is a crime or not. The totalisator is going to collect revenue for charitable purposes and to encourage the breeding of horses. I cannot understand the point about breeding horses when practically everybody in this country is going to have a motor car. What is the good of all this talk about breeding more horses when the whole world is going to travel on wheels driven by petrol? Consequently, the argument about the breeding of horses is not as strong as it used to be.
The last point that I want to put is this, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet seen the significance of the vast powers conferred on this Control Board. This Control Board will be entitled to buy land and to lay out grounds for racecourse purposes, and it will be entitled to instigate and promote horse-racing throughout the land. I was happy to learn the other day from the authorities that there are only two racecourses in the whole of Wales, and I say that Wales ought to be proud of that fact. What I object to is that this Racecourse Betting Control Board will have the power, in spite of the fact that the Welsh people apparently do not very much want betting or horse-racing, to go to any part of the land, buy up property, and establish racecourses, without any authority at all from anyone.

Major GLYN: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, I made it perfectly clear, when that insinuation was made in Committee, that there is not a single word of truth in it.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has challenged my statement, and declares that there is no truth in what I have said. I venture to submit to him that, whatever intentions he may have had in introducing this Bill, including the Amendments as we now have them, the wording of the Amendments will admit of everything that I have prophesied, whether he likes it or not. Probably the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee will not want to do these things; all that I am saying is that they will have power to do exactly what I have suggested.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to impugn the accuracy of my hon. and gallant Friend. Could he say—I have read the Bill very carefully—where there is any power for the Control Board to establish a new racecourse?

Mr. DAVIES: That shows that either the right hon. Gentleman has misread the Bill or I have done so; it just indicates, in fact, the colossal ignorance of people on the other side as to the provisions of this Measure.

HON. MEMBERS: Sub-section (2) of Clause 2.

Mr. DAVIES: It is mentioned elsewhere. I would call attention to Clause 3. I know every word and comma of it. It begins:
The Racecourse Betting Control Board"—
and, if hon. Members will look at paragraph (5), they will see that it says:
shall (subject to the payment out of the totalisator fund of all taxes, rates, charges, and working expenses, and to the retention of such sums as they think fit to meet contingencies, and to the payment out of the said fund of such sums as they think fit to charitable purposes) apply the moneys from time to time comprised in the totalisator fund in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Board and approved by the Secretary of State for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse racing.
Let me put this to the Home Secretary and to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn). How can the Board do anything for purposes conducive to the sport of horse-racing without providing land upon which to race the horses?

Mr. STORRY DEANS: May I assist the House for a moment? If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, they will see that it gives the Board power to acquire land.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: That is for the purpose of erecting a totalisator.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: Oh, no.

Mr. DAVIES: I understand that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Deans) is one of the best lawyers in the land, and hon. Members really must take my word for it that he knows more about the matter than I do.
As a layman, with no knowledge of the law at all, I will venture to put as clearly as I can what I think is meant by Subsection (2) of Clause 2.

HON. MEMBERS: He agrees!

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, and consequently I do not think it is fair for the right hon. Gentleman and the promoters of the Bill to stand up here and declare that my contention was not correct when I spoke just now. [Interruption.] Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough, when I have concluded, to get up and explain what is meant by these words:
The Board shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and may acquire, hold, sell, and dispose of land and other property for the purposes of its powers.
What are "the purposes of its powers"? Surely, they are purposes conducive to the sport of horse-racing, and I should say, therefore, that, if this Betting Control Board feel at any time that they think there is a demand in any part of the country for a new racecourse, or for a dozen of them, they will have power to open up and lay out these racecourses, according to the two Clauses that I have already mentioned. Will the right hon. Gentleman challenge that?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will. I can say quite definitely that, according to my reading of the Bill, the suggestions of the hon. Member are not correct. The Control Board can only purchase land for the purposes of carrying out its, powers under the Act, and paragraph (5) of Clause 3 does not include power to establish a new racecourse.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will look at paragraph (6) Clause 3—
may do all such things as are incidental to the foregoing matters"—
that is to say, incidental to the promotion of horse racing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I have had advice on the matter from my legal advisers, and I do not think that that is so. I am, however, quite willing to go into that point once more before the matter comes before the House again, but my own personal
opinion is clearly that these provisions would not authorise a great extension of the powers for the purpose of establishing the totalisator, in the direction of allowing the Board to establish new racecourses.

Mr. BARR: May I submit a further point? Reference is made in the Bill to approved racecourses, and we were told repeatedly by the promoters of the Bill that it was for the Betting Control Board to authorise these approved racecourses. Have they no power, consequently, to authorise racecourses from the very foundation, and to authorise entirely new racecourses for which the funds are provided in the manner indicated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to take up so much of the time of the House. It is quite clear that, if a company or anyone else starts a new racecourse, it is open to the Betting Control Board to give or not to give its approval, but I am still of opinion that it is not open to the Betting Control Board to utilise their funds for the purpose of starting a new racecourse.

Mr. DALTON: Would it be open to the Betting Control Board to give a subsidy from its funds to a newly opened racecourse?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That, of course, is coming a little nearer. It is very difficult to answer all these conundrums, but I have answered them so far quite definitely. I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton).

Mr. DALTON: If there be really any doubt on that point, it means that the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is admitted, because any person, whether connected with the Jockey Club or anyone else, might come to an arrangement—I do not mean a formal legal arrangement, but an understanding—that, if they were to open a new racecourse, they would get some financial support, and they might be encouraged to open a new racecourse by a clear understanding that it would be subsidised.

Mr. DAVIES: After that diversion, I would like to say that, while on political principles I am always ready and willing to listen to the Home Secretary, on points of law I really prefer the advice of the
hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Deans). He is definitely on my side, and I prefer always to listen to those people who are on my side. That is probably a general failing. The right hon. Gentleman has been disturbed by our contention. His mind is disturbed because I feel sure he does not want the Betting Control Board to promote horse racing. I understand that is his personal feeling, whatever allegiance he may have to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. gentleman must not impute opinions to me which I have not expressed. The Bill authorises the Betting Control Board to use their surplus money for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses and to support horse racing, subject always to the assent of the Secretary of State. I assent and agree with those terms, but I still say the hon. Gentleman's contention is not correct.

Captain A. EVANS: Is it not true to say that, under this Bill, even if a proposal of that kind were made, my right hon. Friend has to approve of them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Mr. DAVIES: Let us see what will happen. Imagine what may happen in two years' time, or less. My right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) will be Home Secretary, a typical Nonconformist, and he will be asked to sanction a new racecourse in any part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman in fact has practically given the whole show away. He cannot get away from the point I put, and I return to it once again. This body will have immense powers. I feel sure its powers have not been comprehended by a single Member of the House. When I give one fact that has come to my notice, it will be sufficient to indicate the colossal nature of what is going to happen. This body, on one racecourse alone I am informed, will spend £35,000 on electrical plant to provide power for a totalisator. People who can spend £35,000 on one racecourse for the purposes of this machine will have immense financial transactions passing through their hands. I am unwilling that the State should touch the matter at any point at all.
Let us see exactly what we are coming to, because this Amendment is the pivot on which the whole Bill turns. It was an innocent Measure when we saw it. It only contained two or three lines. It was expanded upstairs as if it were elastic. I am not entitled to say all that happenned upstairs though I shall have a very strong complaint to make later. We were closured unduly.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: Although I have no legal knowledge, I have sufficient instinct to see through the whole game. I am opposed to the Betting Control Board, which by the way was all framed out and tabulated and prepared and issued to certain members of the Committee. I never got one. I never had a single circular of any kind from anyone, except one from a Church protesting against the whole thing. I never received a copy of that circular framing the Board of Control, which was practically established in the mind of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee before the right hon. Gentleman had anything to do with it. Our objection to all this business is that there has been so much backstairs method about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government were at sixes and sevens. That is nothing new about this Government, and to-day two legal luminaries, the Home Secretary and an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, are as far apart as the poles on this point. I can say, from private discussions I have had with hon. Members opposite, that if they were not committed to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would throw the Bill out and gladly vote for our Amendment; but there seems to be a sort of blind loyalty in the Tory mind somehow. You cannot remove it. I suppose they are going to follow the Chancellor to the end.
The House of Commons has a tremendous duty to perform—to relieve the Home Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture of all this responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham called it contamination—I thought it was a very good word indeed—that the State should not be contaminated with any betting transactions at all. I have never been on a racecourse in my life. I imagine the
Home Secretary of the day, whoever he may be, sitting in the Home Office, being compelled to control and regulate this business and to appoint a Chairman when he has probably never been on a racecourse in his life. What a terrible situation! It may be that the gentleman suggested by a puritanical, Nonconformist Home Secretary, to act as Chairman of the Betting Control Board, will be the most doubtful person in the land. The state of affairs then would be simply terrible to contemplate. Imagine what they have done in the amended Bill. First of all, they have the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. They have the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They put the onus upon the Home Secretary to appoint the Chairman of this Betting Control Board. Why should it fall to the Home Secretary? I do not know. This business was instigated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as far as I can see, he ought to finish his doubtful task and himself become President of the Control Board and carry out the whole transaction.
I am astonished at the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has never said a word except interjecting when I speak. He did that upstairs also. He has had to be taken to task on a point that was raised to-day. I and other Members of this party, and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who did such excellent work in Committee, throwing light on dark places and raising the whole thing from the morass of the slough of despond, put a question to him as to who instigated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he never gave a reply at all, and to-day he has allowed the right hon. Gentleman to give the whole show away. Has he ever conceived this happening? If the Betting Control Board transgresses the law of the land and the Home Office is represented on the Betting Control Board, and it has to appear in the dock as an offender against the law, the Home Office may have to prosecute itself. Has it ever occurred to him? This is what he is coming to. I do not know, as I have said, who is going to be appointed Chairman of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, appoint some of those gentlemen who have retired from the police force, and there are several of them looking for jobs, and, by the way, this will be a paid job.
There is another question which he has to remember. It is not stipulated in this Bill as to whether the representative of a Government Department will have his expenses paid by the Department or paid out of the fees of the totalisator. That does not appear here. Therefore, we say, we ought to go back to the status quo. We are Socialists, every one of us, but we are not silly enough to allow the State to nationalise vice. If the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee want to perform this task, a very doubtful one, and in the opinion of some people, a vile one, let them perform it alone. Once again I say, we object to Government Departments being implicated and being partners in this business, not because we want the right hon. Gentleman to refrain from joining it, but because some day we shall be on the Government Benches.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: I rise to support the Amendment, and I find that my task is not made any easier by some of the parting gibes and references thrown out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). He described himself as a Socialist, and, if there is anyone I despise—and I speak of a man not personally but purely as a Socialist—more than anybody else it is a Socialist. One of my objections to this Bill is that it is, at any rate, in part Socialism. It is in the direction of State control. I possess perhaps an excess of legal zeal, but, if there is anything I hate more than anything else, it is a bad point of law. It rouses my ire entirely when I hear people talking bad law. Here is a plain question. This Statute will not be construed by any Judge before whom it comes because of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) had said nor even because of what the Home Secretary had said. It seems to be imagined by some Members that if somebody in charge of a Bill gets up and says, "It is not my intention that this shall have such and such an operation," that in some way or other controls the operation of the Act. It does not, because directly the matter comes before the Law Courts and you say to the learned Judge—who is not allowed to read the Official Report of the Debates much less the Official Report of the Debates in the Committees upstairs—"Oh, but the House of Commons was assured by the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the
Bill that it did not moan so and so, that it did not mean what it says," he will say, "Really, you are wasting my time. What have I to do with that?" It is perfectly obvious that many hon. Gentlemen in this House may be supporting this Bill because they think that it does give this new Board power to establish racecourses out of the totalisator fund. I think that would be right, and I will tell the House why. I should strongly advise the Home Office to get some better advice. I think I can made this point plain to the party opposite. This is how the Bill reads:
Notwithstanding any rule of law or enactment to the contrary, it shall be lawful on any approved racecourse, and whether in a building or not,
to set up a totalisator, and for any person to bet by means of that totalisator. Then we have a definition of a totalisator, and a definition of an approved racecourse, and it is not until you come to Clause 3 that you get the other powers of this new Board. The powers are these: To revoke certificates of approval, and to make conditions of the grant of a certificate of approval and, among other conditions, they may require the racecourse owner to set up a place where bookmakers may carry on their business. They say that they may borrow upon the security of the fund, and that, subject to the payment out of the funds of all expenses, and contingencies and to the payment of money to charities, they shall apply the moneys from time to time comprised in the totalisator fund in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Board and approved by the Secretary of State for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse-racing. I am not concerned as to whether the breeding of horses or the improvement of the sport of horse-racing is good or bad. The point is whether this Bill authorises the Board to acquire land and set up new racecourses if they think that such a new racecourse would improve the breeding of horses or the sport of horse-racing. Can they acquire the land? It is perfectly clear that they can, because in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), it says:
The Board shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and may acquire, hold, sell, and dispose of land and other property for the purposes of its powers.
With all deference to the numerous legal advisers of the Home Office, I suggest that it is beyond argument that they have power, if they reasonably think that what they are doing would conduce to the benefit of the sport of horse-racing, to acquire land and establish a now racecourse in any part of the country where such a racecourse does not exist or where they think that there are not sufficient racecourses. This is how the Courts will interpret this question. They will say: "Well, somebody has got to decide what is conducive to the benefit of the sport of horse-racing. Who is to do so? You are not going to ask us, the Courts, to decide it, because we simply shall not do it." The Judges will hold that the one and only tribunal to decide what is conducive to the benefit of the sport of horse-racing is the Board which it is proposed to constitute by this Act. I really think that the Home Secretary had better, if this Bill does go through this House, have this point reconsidered by his legal advisers, and, if they do not happen to include anybody who is skilled in the interpretation of the Act, let him take outside advice. He can find gentlemen who are quite competent to advise him.

Major GLYN: There is nothing in this Bill which will enable the Board to start racecourses. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the Clause which he has quoted he will see that the Board are empowered for the purposes of the Act to set up totalisators on certain racecourses, and to make further provision with regard to betting thereon.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: The hon. and gallant Member must see that the Board may acquire land for the purpose of its powers. If he will tell me that, under this Bill, the Board have not power to do things which are conducive to the improvement of the sport of horse-racing, then I will respectfully suggest to him that his knowledge of the English language is strictly limited.

Major GLYN: Restricted as my knowledge of the English language may be, I certainly understand the language of this Bill to say that, for the purposes of this Act, there shall be established a board. That board is to be established for a certain purpose, and it can do nothing else but carry out that purpose.

Mr. STORRY DEANS: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I take the hon. and gallant Member through his own Bill—if it be his own Bill—so that we may see how the matter really stands. For the purposes of the Act, a board is to be constituted. What does that mean? It means for the purposes of carrying out the powers which are conferred upon the Statutory Authority by the Act. It cannot mean anything else. If the purpose of the Act was simply to establish totalisators at which people could bet, and nothing more, then, of course, it would be an entirely different Bill, and the Bill would end there. But it does not end there. The Bill goes on to establish a fund and to say what should be done with that fund; and what should be done with that fund is one of the powers, or one of the purposes, if you like to put it that way, of the Act. Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not say that the sole purpose of the Act is to enable people to bet with the totalisator. That is only one purpose. Surely, the hon. and gallant Member's case must be this, if the Bill has a public purpose which justifies the promoters in coming to Parliament and asking for powers in respect of it, that its purpose is to confer some public benefit. The public benefit which it proposes to confer is the improvement of the breeds of horses and the improvement of the sport of horse racing.
I respectfully suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should again consult with some Government Department. I suppose it is the Home Office, or perhaps it is the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries who have to do with this matter; certainly it seems a strange conglomeration. As this is a moral question, why should not the Archbishop of Canterbury be consulted? Let the hon. and gallant Member consult with one or more of these people or, if he likes, let him take the advice—I do not ask him to take my advice—of some sound lawyer. Let him see some sound lawyer who is not a Member of this House. There is many a junior barrister of six months' standing who is quite competent to give an opioion on a matter of this kind.
I did not rise merely to talk on this interesting point of the construction of
the Bill. I rose for the purpose of opposing the constitution of this Board by the inclusion of any members of the Government in it. I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that this is the first time in the history of this country that a Bill has been proposed in the House of Commons to encourage betting. This Bill is to encourage betting, to make betting more attractive or less unattractive on racecourses. Hon. Members speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill said that it was a disgrace in this country that people were so restricted when they went to racecourses that they had to bet with bookmakers, who were an undesirable class of people. It was said that there was a lot of turmoil and hustle in which it was not fit for any respectable woman to engage on a racecourse, and that if we got the totalisator—a nice, clean, quiet machine, worked by electricity—any lady, however fastidious she might be, would be able to go to a racecourse and, by pressing a button or putting something into a slot, be able to record her bet and get proper odds.
This is a Bill to make betting more attractive. I will not say to encourage an increase in the volume of betting, but it will make it more attractive. I am a Tory of Tories, a Conservative of Conservatives, and I object to departing from the beaten track of precedent which our forefathers have trod for centuries, upon the flimsy pretext that certain racecourses cannot get enough gate receipts, or because it is said that they cannot afford sufficient prizes to make horse-racing attractive to the racing owners. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has consulted the Encyclopædia Britannica, a most excellent work. I have consulted on many occasions many Acts of Parliament relating to this subject, and I find that if you go back, for instance, as far as Henry VIII——[Interruption.] I do not hold the same opinions about Henry VIII as are held by many people. Apart from his matrimonial peculiarities, he was a most excellent monarch. He was the father of his people.

Mr. SPEAKER: These historical reminiscences are carrying us rather far from the Control Board.

Mr. DEANS: I was merely on the point that the Control Board containing Members of a Government Department, was entirely unprecedented, and I was trying to take the House back along the line of legislation which the House has pursued for centuries. I hope you will forgive me if to the plain calico of my observations I added a little embroidery. I was saying that in the reign of Henry VIII an Act was passed dealing with gaming. In those old days this House used to enlighten Acts of Parliament with a preamble, and the preamble to that Act gives the reasons why betting and gaming should be discouraged in a way that has never been improved upon at any time by any statesman or moralist. I am not trying to speak as a moralist but as one who hopes some day or other to be a statesman. The reasons given by

that Act of Henry VIII's Parliament were these, that betting and gaming tend to idleness—it is obvious that if anyone is spending his time on a racecourse he cannot be at work—to un-thriftiness and to all manner of vice and and is conducive to all manner of crimes.

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, the hon. Member must find a more suitable occasion for enlarging on these moral questions.

Major GLYN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 112.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[2.58 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nuttall, Ellis


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Berry, Sir George
Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brass, Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dunnico, H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacIntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.



Grace, John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Major Glyn and Sir Berkeley Sheffield.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Haslam, Henry C.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Clarry, Reginald George
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Storry-Deans and Mr. Barr.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes. 111.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[3.6 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dixey, A. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurd, Percy A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Iveagh, Countess of


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bennett, A. J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Berry, Sir George
Fermoy, Lord
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gates, Percy
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Briscoe, Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gower, Sir Robert
Looker, Herbert William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grace, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lumley, L. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacIntyre, Ian


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Margesson, Captain D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hilton, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nuttall, Ellis


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Penny, Frederick George
Savery, S. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Perring, Sir William George
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wells, S. R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Salmon, Major I.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Major Glyn and Sir Berkeley Sheffield.


Sandon, Lord
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Heslam, Henry C.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Junes, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Clarry, Reginald George
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, J. P.
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Storry-Deans and Mr. Barr.

Mr. COMPTON: I beg to move in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "horse."
This Amendment would make the Clause read:
for the Board and any person authorised by them to operate, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, a totalisator on days when races take place on the racecourse.
The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to secure from the promoters of the Bill some definite statement which we were unable to get during the Committee stage. We understand that the promoters regard this as a financial venture, and, that being the case, some of us believe that it ought to be applied to other than horse racing courses. If it
is good enough to be applied to horse racecourses, we claim that it ought to be applied to other forms of sport as well. There are many other forms of sport, such as cycle racing, which can be classified as racing, and there is foot racing. Then we might put a very pertinent question to the promoters and ask whether, if the establishment of a betting machine is good enough for a horse racecourse, seeing that many of them are interested in dog racing, they will tell us if they propose to introduce this machine to dog racing, or, if not, whether they will give us some reason why they refuse to associate themselves openly with what they might term a less aristocratic form of racing.
In so far as this machine and its application to horse racing is concerned, I am not satisfied that the difficulties of horse racing lie in the questionable tactics of bookmakers on the course. I am not satisfied that the totalisator machine will in any way cleanse the racecourse, and I think that what are required are "tote" jockeys and "tote" racehorse owners, whereby the public who come to the actual sport of horse racing shall be able to see the horses and not be tampered with in many of the questionable ways that were brought out during the Committee stage. In so far as the setting up of this machine is concerned, therefore, we feel that some reason should be given by the promoters for its establishment on horse racecourses only, and we move this Amendment believing that what is good enough for horse racing certainly ought to be good enough for any other form of sport. As the promoters and the Government are determined to legalise gambling, we think it ought to be good enough to do so on any racecourse and not only on courses for horse racing.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel that we ought to know a little more as to the uses to which the powers proposed in this Clause are likely to be put, and we ought to get the magnitude of the whole problem associated with horse-racing in so far as we can make comparisons between one form of racing and another. This Bill has been so altered in Committee that it seems to me that we are now discussing a proposal that was only used in a very limited sense on the original introduction of the Bill. We have agreed that there shall be a Board of Control, which will, if this Amendment is lost, have powers solely confined to courses where horse-racing takes place. [Interruption.] I must not allow my hon. Friends to get me giving a description of what is a horse or what class of horse we mean. It is proposed that certain surpluses accruing shall be used for improving the breed of horses. A horse is not a horse if it is an ordinary working horse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because a horse in the particular sense of this Clause is that kind of horse that is used only for racing purposes on a racecourse. The breed of Clydesdales will not be
affected. The breed of the ordinary hackney will not be improved by this Bill. As the Clause in its present form is very restricted in its operations, and as the Government have now determined to take a hand in the transaction, we feel that they ought now to enlarge the scope for which the surpluses are to be used. I warned them of the slippery incline on which they had got. They have a most slippery incline with clay feet, sprayed by a liquid coming in the form of profits on a totalisator to make their progress downward easy.
Therefore, it does appear to me that if the sole purpose, in the first instance, was to improve the breed of horses for racecourses and for horse-racing, it was right then, if my Amendment had been carried, that such a class would be well left in the hands of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. Since they cut that out, I want the whole position reviewed. I ask the Government to give an answer to this question: Do they agree to associate themselves with a Statute committee to legalise betting only for horse-racing, and will they still leave open for possible prosecution all the elements associated with dirt-track racing of motors, pony races, whippets, greyhounds, terriers and rats? I can quite see some very peculiar names being given to some of the animals which, after the passing of this Bill, will engage in the various forms of racing on the various tracks. Surely if you are going to associate yourself with a Board of Control to legalise betting, you might just as well engage in it with your eyes full open, and take in the wider view. I want to see the word "horse" left out, because then it will leave the question in a very general state.
I feel that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) will oppose the point of view I am submitting, not in its general sense, but in the sense that prompted him to move the insertion of this word upstairs. I believe that he was prompted to propose the insertion of the word "horse" before the word "racing" so as to distinguish it from any other form of sport. I would ask him to support us on this occasion, because then only the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee were involved, and "horse" was inserted before "racing"
to limit the great power that was coming to them, for without this limit they would be able to engage in other forms of racing, and utilise the facilities of the totalisator not only for horse-racing, but for all other forms of racing. We have come to a stage in our Debates when we should have it made clear what scope of operations it is intended that the totalisator should cover.
The word "horse" in this case may give rise to some amusing thoughts in the minds of some Members. They may say, "Why does the hon. Member for West Nottingham make such a fuss over the one word 'horse,' whether it is in or out? What is the effect of it if it is in?" The effect of it is to assure the Racecourse Betting Control Board that, whatever money there is available after they have satisfied the hunger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall go partly to charity and partly to promote the breeding of racehorses and the promotion of the sport of horse-racing. Is one sport any better than another sport? The well-to-do will say that the sport of kings is horse-racing, and that the sport of the well-to-do is horse-racing, and that whatever surplus they can draw from the average punter with his two shillings, three shillings, or five shillings deposit in the totalisator, must go to help the sport of kings. It must go to help the support of the wealthy. It must go to help breeding. You must bribe the well-to-do to continue to have pleasure in engaging in their hobby of horse-racing and horse-breeding.
That is what it means with the word "horse" kept in. There would be more support for it if we knew that it applied to other animals than these beautiful red creatures which I have loved to see as specimens of perfection. I might like to go to see a motor cycle race on a track, or I might like to go to see a greyhound race. As a matter of fact that does not quite appeal to me, but I have no right on that account to tell other people that it ought not to attract them. If it appeals to them, they may well say that it would be an added attraction if the application of this system to their sport would mean the development of, say, some unknown species of dog. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rats and mice!"] I am quite serious I know nothing that would be more interesting, nothing that would attract the at-
tention of people more, than the production of something between a greyhound, a little terrier and—what are those other dogs called?—Alsatians and Pekinese. Are there not some intriguing possibilities if somebody came forward and said, "I want to create not a new kind of sport, but I want to apply the old methods of sport to a new kind of dog"? Why should all those possibilities be debarred? This Measure came to the House as a private Member's Bill, but it has been so chopped up and cut about that as an Act of Parliament it will be just as much a freak by comparison with the Bill which was introduced as the new type of dog might be in comparison with the greyhound.

Sir B. PETO: Has the hon. Member observed that the Amendment would not do anything to divert the proceeds of totalisators to the encouragement of the production of the interesting animals to which he has referred, but that the proceeds of the totalisators at these dog races would be devoted to improving the breed of horses? Therefore, dog races would be used for the development of the breed of horses.

Mr. HAYDAY: I thank the hon. Member, but I may tell him that I had anticipated that point. If this Amendment be carried there could be a manuscript Amendment later to meet the point which he has put forward and which I had in my mind. He would like to know why we want to dispose of the word which he himself suggested should be inserted. If I can satisfy the hon. Member by any further answer I will be delighted to do so, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, within the confines of my very limited knowledge of the subject, at present unknown, at present unexplored, but which I am certain ought to be opened up to such exploration; and that is why I do not want to restrict these possible developments to horse breeding.
I only partly explained what might happen with the word "horse" out, but I can conceive many directions in which this Bill could be enlarged, and surely this could be done in view of the very serious departures which we have made from the original intentions of the Bill. Let me give an illustration. Suppose half-a-dozen private Members were successful in the ballot and each one promoted a private Bill for a separate form
of racing and each Bill called for another representative from the various Government Departments. In that case, it would be possible to have six racecourse Boards of Control to deal with six different forms of racing. We might have six different types of totalisators, pari-mutuel, or travelling gaming machines.
Whenever these machines were being removed from one racecourse to another, they could be collecting bets along the highroads. These are all possibilities, and it appears to me that, instead of having all these separate bodies which is possible with the word "horse" in the Bill, we should leave out that word and apply the Bill to all kinds of sport. The Measure is very much restricted with the word "horse" in it, and there you are. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are we?"] In common parlance, we are up against it. Are you going to say that what is proposed in the case of horse-racing is a good thing and that it is not a good thing in the case of other forms of sport? I taste a sweet. It is nice, and I want more. If what is proposed in this Bill is a good thing for horse-racing, why not take out the word "horse" and apply the Bill to all kinds of racing? If a thing is bad for other kinds of sport, then it is bad for horse-racing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that my arguments are beginning to dawn upon hon. Members. What I have stated is the logic of the whole thing. In the family circle you would not say that certain things were good for one particular person and bad for another. If a thing is good at all, it is good in its general application, and that is all you will find in this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite who have been supporting the promoters of this Bill, and the Government Departments who think that horse-racing is a good thing, if they are real sportsmen, they will extend that good thing to other forms of sport and agree to eliminate the financial interests which we feel surround this question. If it is good for sport as such, then you cannot restrict it to any one branch of sport.
There are some hon. Members on this side, and, I suppose, opposite, and I have the most profound respect for their views, who would not touch racing in any circumstances. They argue, quite rightly according to their lights, that
they would not have this whether the word "horse" were in or out—they would not have racing where there is an element of a machine to encourage gambling. They say that it ceases to be sport when the element of monetary gain comes in. The element of monetary gain surrounds this Bill as it is; it is the basis of it, it is the whole thing. If there were no money in it at all, the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee would say, "Why should we want to go to Parliament for powers if we can set up our travelling machines and take the risk, as we take it now? If we are short, we can have a whip round among our poor millionaires to get us out of the difficulty, if ever we do get into difficulties." If, on the other hand, they find that they can fleece the public by getting Parliamentary powers to institute a machine——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now getting away from the merits of horse-racing as compared with other racing. That is the whole point of the Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: I was just using that as an illustration. I am speaking of the money influence, and saying that, because it is there, they desire to edge in and restrict the fruitful operation of the financial flow solely in order to benefit horse-racing. I think most Britishers have some element of sporting instinct in them. Does the amateur run for a money prize or for the glory of winning? Will the millionaire horse owner run his horses for the glory and honour of winning, or for the measure of money that he can get from it? Why limit it to that? Surely, the poorer man, if he has some dogs in training for a race, can take as much pride, and ought to be treated equally according to his lights and station, in the development of all the fine points of speed and stamina in his dog, as the millionaire race-horse owner does in endeavouring to develop speed and stamina in his horses.
Therefore, while I have no desire to detain the House longer than is absolutely necessary in order to be clear on some of these points, it does appear to me that this Amendment is of greater importance than a casual thought given to it would lead one to believe. So im-
portant is it that the hon. Member for Barnstaple found that the promoters had overlooked it, and, if my memory is correct, I think the records will show that the promoters thanked the hon. Member for Barnstaple for calling their attention to a little leak in the bucket that might enable some of the profits of horse-racing to escape unless horse-racing was definitely mentioned and the word "horse" was included. The dog's share of most things is that which is cast aside as being worthless in other respects. I can think of a number of forms of racing. I should prefer to see them outside the arena of the monetary incentive. I cannot for the life of me understand this definitely class legislation for the horse breeder and owner, for the millionaire, to profit by. It was very strange to see the number of racehorse owners and breeders who seemed to be over-anxious for the Bill to pass through and who took an active part in its promotion.
I want a larger and a more general spirit to enter into it. I want to leave out the word "horse" with the deliberate intention that if there is to be a totalisator, if there is to be any legalising of betting, if there are to be any protections against the 1853 Betting Act, those protections and benefits should not be confined to a racecourse for horse-racing only. They ought to be general in their application. They ought to be for the office man, for the starting price man, for the racecourse man, and they ought to be for all forms of sport if you are going to have them at all. If I were asked, I should say I do not want them at all. If I won a sculling race I should be glad of the honour of having won it. If I took as a hobby the development of any branch of sport I should not want to be encouraged by monetary payment. If I love it, if it is part of my make-up, if I look upon it, rightly or wrongly, as the right thing for me to indulge in, so long as I keep within the law of the land, I do not want any money incentive. If, on the other hand, people better placed than I am want to collar all the profits by deductions from the investments of people poorer than themselves in order to maintain and develop their own sport, you cannot give it to them and deny it to other folks who certainly could do with some financial assistance if financial assistance is to be given
at all. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Before the Home Secretary speaks, I presume against the Amendment, may I ask for your guidance, Sir. The selection of this Amendment by you has put some of us on this side of the House—I have consulted my friends—in a difficulty. We are opposed to the Amendment. The fact that it is moved by an hon. Member with whom we have voted in other Divisions, makes matters a little difficult for us. May I ask if, before a decision is come to, you will give someone on this side who is opposed to the Amendment a chance of voicing our objection to it if we are not satisfied with the objection put forward by the Home Secretary.

Mr. SPEAKER: I always try to allow expression to be given to every point of view.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The totalisator has never been used in this country up to the present. The Bill proposes to authorise it as an experiment in connection with horse-racing only. There is another Bill before the House dealing with dog-racing. It will go to Committee next week and will come down on the Report stage, I hope, before the end of the Session. That will be the time to consider the question of tine totalisator in connection with dog-racing. This Bill is entirely a Bill relating to horse-racing, and the remarkable part about it is, that in the Committee stage upstairs on the 19th June there was an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to confine an approved racecourse to a racecourse for racing exclusively with horses. The word "exclusively" was put in. The word "exclusively" was passed unanimously by the Committee, including the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). Really, for the hon. Member for West Nottingham to come Here now and move that it be extended to other forms is, if the House will forgive me, an abuse of the time of the House.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The whole thing has been abused.

Mr. MacDONALD: The House, I am sure, will forgive me if I say that the intervention of the Home Secretary has not been a very fortunate one. The promoters of this Bill said on Second Reading, and they took a decision in Committee again and again, that the establishment of a totalisator was going to do certain things upon racecourses relating to betting. It was to prevent people who were betting from being swindled. It was to reduce the noise and the vulgarity and the abominations on racecourses. It was to eliminate the most objectionable practices from racecourses. It was, in a sentence, to make it easier and nice and delightful for certain polite and well-behaved and pelf-respecting people to attend racecourses and indulge in betting. That was the case. I do not believe in betting at all. I have never done any betting and I hope that I never shall, but it is necessary for those who are opposing this Bill to ask the promoters of the Bill—I am not sure whether the Home Secretary has become the promoter of the Bill—a question. I do not know whether the Home Secretary in his speech just now indicated that the Government have decided to take up this Bill and make it an official Bill—I hope not—but it is necessary that the promoters of this Bill, at any rate, out of respect to this House should inform us why, if they believe that the introduction of the totalisator is going to do so much good on racecourses, they should exclude from the benefits of this machine those very courses where the great masses of the people resort.
I know perfectly well that it can be said that by moving this Amendment we seem to be in favour of extending the area of the Bill. The rules of the House prevent us from raising this point in any other way. As far as I am concerned, I will not give a vote inside this House or outside this House in favour of this Bill either as it stands or for the purpose of extending it. At the same time, as this House, by a Division a short time ago, has decided to establish the totalisator, we do want those responsible for the Bill to tell us why they are so anxious to give it to one kind of racing, particularly seeing that that one kind of racing is suspiciously co-existent with the conveniences and habits of one particular class of the community.

Major GLYN: The right hon. Gentleman has made a direct appeal to the promoters of the Bill to reply to a very straightforward and simple question. The reason why dog-racing and other forms of racing were excluded from the scope of the Bill, was that, originally, this Bill was suggested by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. Those two bodies set up a committee to go into the whole question of improving the sport of horse-racing, of encouraging horse-breeding and cleaning up the turf. The question of dogs has nothing whatever to do with the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee. When the Bill was originally in draft, inquiries were made whether there were any similar bodies in dog-racing or, to a lesser extent, in pony-racing or other forms of racing that could be said to be analogous to the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, which have a worldwide reputation. Therefore, it was quite impossible for the promoters of the Bill, who were endeavouring to do something for horse-racing, to extend the scope of the Bill to any other form of racing.
The main object of the Bill is to see that a great deal of the money which is used in betting should go towards the sport on which such bets are made. The purposes for doing that are the encouragement of breeding, and the helping of all forms of horse-breeding, not merely the breeding of blood stock. I do not know how the money from the totalisator in connection with dog-racing could be used for the breeding of dogs. Certainly it seems to me that there would be a great deal of money flowing from the dog-racing totalisators that could not be used in connection with the breeding of dogs in the same way that money could be used in connection with the breeding of horses. Quite apart from that point, the promoters of the Bill felt that they must ensure that in setting up a new form of betting machines the bodies responsible for those betting machines should have public support behind them. We believe that the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee have public support behind them. I do not know any other associations which stand in a similar position. That is the plain and simple reason why this Bill has been confined to horse-racing. It has not been done to help the sport of the rich against the sport of the poor, or anything of that sort. It has
been done to clean up an old-established sport in this country and to improve the conditions under which it works, and I believe that by the passage of this Bill, associated solely with horses, great good will be done. The promoters could not guarantee that if the scope of the Bill were extended, similar good would result.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I oppose the Amendment. Does the hon. and gallant Member really suggest that if his heart's desire is met and this Bill passes into law, that if the totalisator proves a success, there will not be an overwhelming demand for the totalisator from other forms of racing? Does he think that, in the innocence of his heart? Dirt track racing has been referred to by the hon. Mem-

ber for Nottingham, West (Mr. Hayday). A good case might be made out in that way for the encouragement of motor cycle racing on dirt tracks and for the improvement of motor Cycle engines made in this country. A good case might be made out for aeroplane racing, with a view to the improvement of the British make of aeroplane engine. Except for the purpose of sport, the horse is almost obsolete already.

Major GLYN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put"

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 113.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nuttall, Ellis


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, A. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Berry, Sir George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brass, Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Couper, J. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacIntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.



Fermoy, Lord
Meyer, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Major Glyn and Sir Berkeley Sheffield.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Haughton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strauss, E. A.


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Oakley, T.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Hayday and Mr. Compton.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.



Question, "That the word 'horse' stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

It being after Four of the Clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (LINE-THROWING APPLIANCE) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 9th July.